Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The case at bar is fraught with such risk. There is no doubt that the action of the Tribal Council in removing President Scott from office is of historical significance. As such, it ought not be too readily set aside, especially when no practical remedy is available. As noted above, a new Tribal president, William Kindle, has recently been elected and taken office. Mr. Scott, even if he could prevail on his substantive arguments, cannot be placed back in office.3 Under these circumstances, it’s best to avoid any unnecessary constitutional conflict.

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court of Appeals Decision in Tribal Redistricting Dispute

November 30, 2015November 30, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Woods v. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Council:

woods

An excerpt:

Despite the long and convoluted history of this case, much has been accomplished and both parties are to be commended for the positive results to date. As noted by Attorney Gunn in his letter of September 21, 2015, which is now part of the record in this case:

… the Tribal Council does not seek to undermine the rights and values enshrined in the Tribal Constitution or the Indian Civil Rights Act. To the contrary, the Tribal Council has honored and protected those rights by enacting redistricting legislation that ensures, and will continue to ensure, proportionate representation in the Tribal Council for all Tribal citizens.

There may still be differences of opinion in the details, but not on the overarching Tribal constitutional principle that mandates Tribal Council reapportionment. This, indeed, is worthy and noteworthy advance.

To be clear, while this case is over, the process of reapportionment and redistricting is not. Both sides realize that there is more to come, especially in regards to the Tribal Council’s commitment to taking a new tribal census in 2017 to guide redistricting for 2018 elections. See, e.g., Tribal Council Resolution 10-2015-CR. The implementation of this Tribal Council resolution may or may not lead to new litigation. If there is such litigation, the issue of Tribal Council sovereign immunity may be raised as a defense at that time. If it is, both the trial court and this Court shall rule upon it.

Executive Director Job Posting for Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake Tribe

November 30, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Position Description for the opening Executive Director position for Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake tribe. All inquiries regarding this position should be directed to: Geoff Hash (ghash@rosettelaw.com).

2015.10.16 TLE Inc. ED Position Description

Eleventh Circuit Briefs in Poarch Band of Creek Indians v. Hildreth

November 30, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Hildreth Opening Brief

Poarch Band Brief

US Amicus Brief

Hildreth Reply

Lower court materials here.

Disenrollee Suit to Recover Children’s Trust Funds

November 30, 2015November 30, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Rash v. Jeff Davis Bancshares Inc. (W.D. La.):

Complaint

An excerpt:

Defendant, Jeff Davis Bancshares, Inc., d/b/a under the tradename Jeff Davis Bank and Trust Company (“Jeff Davis Bank”) accepted in 2000 and 2001 the trusteeship over substantial funds placed in trust by the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (the “Coushatta Tribe”) for the benefit of certain minor children, to be held in trust until such then-minor beneficiaries attained the age of twenty-one (21) years. Each trust is an irrevocable trust with the Coushatta Tribe as Settlor and one child, who was a minor at the time the trust was established, as the sole income and principal beneficiary (the “Beneficiary”) of said trust, which trust bears the name of said Beneficiary (each a “Children’s Trust” and collectively the “Children’s Trusts”). At the time each Children’s Trust was established and Jeff Davis Bank accepted the trusteeship, the minor child Beneficiaries were legally members of the Coushatta Tribe,