Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher

NCAI Release on VAWA Signing Ceremony with Pres. Obama

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Violence Against Women Act Signed Into Law;
NCAI Begins Implementation Coordination

NCAI Members join President Obama and Vice President Biden, Members of Congress, and Advocates to Celebrate Passage of Protections for All Women

NCAI’s Creative Commons photos available for use by media

WATCH: YouTube clip of the event

Washington, DC – Native women, tribal leaders, women’s rights advocates, and survivors of domestic abuse joined President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden today, along with members of Congress and the Obama Administration, to celebrate the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Members of NCAI’s Executive Committee joined in celebrating the tribal provisions of the bill enacted into law; President Jefferson Keel, 1st Vice President Juana Majel Dixon and Co-Chair of NCAI’s Task Force on Violence Against Women, Secretary Ed Thomas, and Treasurer Ron Allen. Terri Henry, Co-Chair of NCAI’s Task Force on Violence Against Women, was also in attendance.

Diane Millich, a member of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe in Colorado, opened the event and introduced Vice President Biden, sharing her story which has been a focus of national media attention since May of last year, and most recently in a New York Times article. Deborah Parker of the Tulalip Tribe of Washington, an active and prominent voice in the VAWA advocacy efforts alongside the NCAI Task Force, also stood on stage during the signing of VAWA.

“Indian Country has some of the highest rates of domestic abuse in America. And one of the reasons is that when Native American women are abused on tribal lands by an attacker who is not Native American, the attacker is immune from prosecution by tribal courts. Well, as soon as I sign this bill that ends,” said President Barack Obama, moments before signing the bill. “Tribal governments have an inherent right to protect their people, and all women deserve the right to live free from fear. And that is what today is all about.”

“Today represents a historic moment in the nation-to-nation relationships between tribes and the federal government. Now that the tribal provisions have been enacted and protection for all women reauthorized, justice can march forward,” said Jefferson Keel, President of NCAI. “Local tribal authorities have much work to do to ensure that our citizens are protected from these violent crimes. NCAI has already begun focusing on coordinating the implementation of VAWA. Today is a great day, because it marks the beginning of justice and the end to injustice that has gone unanswered for too long.”

In addition to programmatic support for Native survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault, the law includes constitutionally sound tribal jurisdiction provisions authorizing tribal governments to prosecute non-Indian defendants involved in intimate relationships with Native women and who assault these victims on tribal land. Prior to the enactment of this law, federal laws did not authorize tribal law enforcement or tribal courts to pursue any form of prosecution or justice against these perpetrators.

The legislation was passed in late February by the 113th Congress. Bipartisan support of the Senate version of the legislation, S.47, and the tribal provisions, led to both chambers casting resounding votes of 286 – 138 in the House and 78-22 in the Senate. NCAI released statements of support upon the final House passage of the bill.

News Coverage of Hualapai Tribal Councilor Recalls in Aftermath of Skywalk Debacle

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Washington Supreme Court Decides Water Rights Case Involving Yakama Indian Nation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Dept. of Ecology v. Acquavella:

Wash SCT Opinion

And the briefs are here:

Cranes on the Pine Creek Reservation (Nottawaseppi Huron Potawatomi)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

20130307-184620.jpg

Federal Circuit Briefs in Klamath Claims Committee v. US — UPDATED 8-26-13

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

KCC Opening Brief

US Answer Brief

Klamath Tribe Amicus

KCC Reply Brief

Lower court materials here and here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Dispute between “Advantage Gamblers” and Tonto Apache Tribal Casino

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Pistor v. Garcia:

DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss (D. Ariz.)

Garcia Opening Brief

Pistor Answering Brief

Garcia Reply

From the trial court order (Judge Martone):

Plaintiffs, non-Indians, describe themselves as advantage gamblers. All three gambled at the Mazatzal Hotel & Casino (“Mazatzal”) in Payson, Arizona, which is owned and operated by the Tonto Apache Tribe (“the Tribe”) and is located on tribal land. Plaintiffs each won a substantial amount of money playing some of Mazatzal’s video blackjack machines. Moving defendants are all employed by the Tribe. Hoosava is the General Manager of Mazatzal. Kaiser is employed by the Tribe as a Tribal Gaming Office Inspector. Garcia is employed by the Tribe as Chief of the Tonto Apache Police Department. On October 25, 2011, plaintiffs allege that they were seized while inside Mazatzal. Pistor and Abel were handcuffed, and all three plaintiffs were brought to private rooms and questioned. Plaintiffs were eventually released and were not charged with any crime. Defendants seized thousands of dollars in cash and casino cash redemption tickets from plaintiffs. The property has not yet been returned.

Seattle U. Indian Estate Planning Summer Internship

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

PAID SUMMER INDIAN ESTATE PLANNING INTERNSHIP!

Application Deadline: April 15, 2013
Job Description: The summer Indian Estate Planning Project provides exceptional direct client experiences that few law student summer internships offer. In our ninth year, the Project places specially trained second and third year law students from ABA accredited schools on Indian reservations throughout Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wisconsin and Montana. This internship embodies important services for Indian trust land owners that are not provided by any other organization in the country outside of a few legal service offices and a few specially trained private practitioners. The Project provides these services at no cost to clients and without regard to clients’ income.

Duties: Interns attend a one week, fully paid, training session beginning on May 20th at Seattle University School of Law on the history of federal laws and policies creating trust lands and fractionation, trust and non-trust estate planning under federal, state and tribal laws, the federal probate process, the American Indian Probate Reform Act, professional responsibility, will drafting and working within reservation communities. Upon completing the training, interns will serve one assigned tribal community for 10 weeks, providing information on Indian estate planning, interviewing clients, drafting and executing wills, living wills, and related documents. You must have your own vehicle, laptop, and in some instances, relocation for the summer is required.

Qualifications: Students must be in their second or third years of law school and have taken a Wills and Trusts class. A background in Indian Law is a plus but is not required.
Employer Information: The Institute for Indian Estate Planning and Probate is located at Seattle University School of Law and is a project of the Center for Indian Law & Policy.
Application Materials: Please submit: (i) cover letter, (ii) resume, (iii) unofficial transcript, (iv) 3 references to Erica Wolf at wolfer@seattleu.edu.
Salary: Approximately $5500 gross + travel/relocation expenses.

‘Sa’ Nyu Wa — Tribally Chartered Hualapai EDC — Files for Bankruptcy in Arizona

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials:

‘Sa’ Nyu Wa Bankruptcy Petition

List of Equity Secured Holders

List of Top 20 Unsecured Holders

SNW CEO Declaration

Letter Tratos Overton

Hualapai Tribal Court Issues Stay Order in Tribal Court Suit against Grand Canyon Skywalk

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Hualapai Tribal Court Stay Order

Katherine Florey on Tribal Courts’ Jurisdiction

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Katherine Florey has posted her paper, “Beyond Uniqueness: Reimagining Tribal Courts’ Jurisdiction,” forthcoming in the California Law Review, on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

If there is one point about tribal status that the Supreme Court has stressed for decades if not centuries, it is the notion that tribes as political entities are utterly one of a kind. This is to some extent reasonable; tribes, unlike other governments, have suffered the painful history of colonial conquest, making some distinctive treatment eminently justifiable. But recent developments have demonstrated to many tribes that uniqueness has its disadvantages. In the past few decades, the Supreme Court has undertaken a near-complete dismantling of tribal civil jurisdiction over nonmembers. Under current law, tribes have virtually no authority to permit nonmembers to be haled into tribal courts – even when nonmembers have significant ties to the tribe and have come onto the reservation for personal gain. In this project of limiting tribal power, as with so much of the Court’s Indian law jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has emphasized tribes’ distinctive status, notably failing to consider the relevance of more generally applicable doctrines such as personal jurisdiction. Tribal uniqueness has thus come to include tribes’ singular inability to exercise jurisdiction over nonmembers, despite the reality that people and commerce move freely across tribal and non-tribal land.

This is a mistake. Tribal court jurisdiction has much in common with broader notions of personal jurisdiction, and treating it in any other way limits and distorts courts’ analysis. Indeed, the field of jurisdiction presents a striking disparity between the absence of factors actually unique to the tribal context and the extreme idiosyncrasy of the Court’s doctrine. No good reason exists why existing personal jurisdiction doctrines could not be adapted to encompass the issues that tribal court jurisdiction presents; that is true even if one concedes various premises of the Court’s opinions, such as the idea that it is inherently burdensome in most cases for nonmembers to defend in tribal court. Further, because minimum contacts analysis allows courts to take a nuanced, flexible view of the degree of connection between the defendant and the forum, personal jurisdiction doctrine is perfectly suited to addressing the often-complex fact patterns that characterize modern disputes involving Indian country. For these reasons, the Article argues, limitations on tribal court jurisdiction over nonmembers should be recharacterized as limits on personal jurisdiction. This would both harmonize tribal courts’ jurisdiction with that of state courts, and do a better job than current doctrine in balancing the legitimate interests of both tribes and nonmember defendants.