John Beaty on Tribal Eminent Domain

John Beaty has published “Tribal Eminent Domain: Sovereignty Gaps and Policy Solutions” in the New Mexico Law Review. PDF

Abstract:

This Article addresses the existence and scope of the tribal power of eminent domain. American Indian Tribes are sovereign entities within the United States and can exercise many traditional government powers. However, centuries of actions by the United States’ executive, legislative, and judicial branches have eaten away at the fabric of tribal sovereign powers. Currently, the scope of tribal sovereign authority is unclear with regards to eminent domain, the practice of a sovereign taking private property for public use. Eminent domain is important to many tribal governmental interests, including infrastructure development and fighting the fractionation of land interests. Although eminent domain is considered a quintessential sovereign power, scholars, courts, and tribes are unsure of the existence and scope of inherent eminent domain. This Article uses first principles, statutory enactments, tribal practice, and case law to argue that tribes retain some form of eminent domain. However, that power has limited application to nonmembers living on tribal land, hampering its effectiveness as both a practical tool and sovereign power. To fill the gaps, this Article proposes two statutes Congress can adopt, one reaffirming the existence of tribal eminent domain power and one delegating federal eminent domain power. By addressing the limits of tribal eminent domain, Congress can support tribes in their sovereign capacity as governments and allow tribes to fulfill their important policy priorities.

Oklahoma SCT Affirms ICWA Tribal Court Transfer Order

Here is the opinion in In the Matter of the Guardianship of K.D.B.

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Decides Stitt v. City of Tulsa

Here:

Briefs here.

Minnesota Federal Court Orders Tribal Court Exhaustion in White Earth Land Use Dispute

Here are the materials in Vipond v. Degroat (D. Minn.):

1-1 Tribal Court Proceedings

4 Amended Complaint

15 Motion for Stay

21 Tribal Court Response to Motion to Stay

24 Motion for Preliminary Injunction

33 Opposition to Motion for Stay

37 Tribal Court Opposition to Motion for PI

38 Tribe Opposition to Motion for PI

44 Reply ISO Motion for PI

47 Magistrate Order

49 Tribe Opposition

50 Plaintiff Objections

55 DCT Order

Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Wrongful Death Suit against BIA Cops for Killing Innocent Tribal Citizen

Here are the materials in Martin v. Gorneau:

Appellant Brief

Federal Actors Brief

Municipal Actors Brief

State Actors Brief

Unpublished Opinion

Prior post here.

SCOTUS Denies Bibeau v. Commissioner

Order list here.

Just goes to show that there really is no opportunity for Indian people or tribal nations to persuade the federal judiciary to correct its past mistakes. There is no room for long-term litigation strategies.

Petition here.

The clown motel thing is not a reflection on the Court, this pic just has the word “tax” in it.

California Federal Court Rejects Tribal Challenge to Placement on PACT Act Noncompliance List

Here are the materials in Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians v. Garland (C.D. Cal.):

1 Complaint

47 ATF Motion for Summary J

51 Opposition

54 Reply

65 DCT Order

Grant Christensen on Article IV: The New-ish Hope

Grant Christensen has published “Article IV and Indian Tribes” in the Iowa Law Review (PDF). Here is the abstract:

Unlike the first three articles of the Constitution which create the three branches of the federal government and articulate their limited powers, Article IV establishes a set of rules to police the actions of states and knit them together into a single union. Notably absent from Article IV is any mention of the tribal sovereign. Concomitantly, there has been no comprehensive academic discussion addressing how the tribal sovereign complicates the purposes of Article IV. This piece advances a completely new understanding of Article IV and its implications in federal Indian law. It argues that where Article IV advances rights to individual citizens (i.e., a citizen’s right to enforce a court judgment or their claim to the protection of the Privileges and Immunities Clause) then states may not use an individual’s connection to any tribal sovereign as an excuse to deny them the protections of those rights. In contrast, where Article IV speaks to rules designed to ensure states treat each other respectfully (i.e., requests for extradition, claims under the Equal Footing Doctrine, or any attempt to enforce the Guarantee Clause) then Article IV’s rules do not permit states to abridge, abrogate, modify, or erode the inherent rights of tribal nations. As the Court has recently opined, tribal governments themselves were absent from the Constitutional Convention and so constitutional limitations on the inherent powers of state sovereigns do not extend to tribal governments.  

Michigan Federal Court Dismisses Employment Suit against Hannahville Gaming Operation

Here are the materials in Parrotta v. Island Resort and Casino (W.D. Mich.):

7 Amended Complaint

9 Motion to Dismiss

10 Opposition

11 Reply

12 Magistrate Report

13 Objections

14 Response

15 DCT Order