The Supreme Court denied cert in Benally v. United States.
Supreme Court Denies Cert in Benally
The Supreme Court denied cert in Benally v. United States.
The Supreme Court denied cert in Benally v. United States.
In Chippewa v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Fort Hall Indian Reservation (D. Idaho), the court held that it has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a tribal court — Chippewa DCT Order
An excerpt:
Lara, Wheeler, and Enas clearly illustrate that tribal courts and courts of the United States each have separate jurisdiction to prosecute offenses against their respective sovereigns. A federal court does not have jurisdiction over a tribal court prosecution. Furthermore, a tribal court is not an inferior court to the federal court. Therefore, the Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the Tribal Court to either act on Chippewa’s motions or run three Tribal sentences concurrently with the now expired federal sentence.
Although the Court has not located any cases specifically holding that a federal court cannot issue a writ of mandamus to a Tribal Court, it is clear by analogy to cases addressing the issue in the context of state courts that it cannot. See, e.g., Craigo v. Hey, 624 F.Supp. 414, 416 (S.D.W.Va. 1985) (declining to issue a writ of mandamus finding that the Court had no original jurisdiction over a matter filed in state court and because it did not sit “as an appellate or supervisory tribunal” for the state court). See also Harris v. Department of Corrections, 426 F.Supp. 350 (D.C.Okl. 1977) (same; federal district courts do not sit to review actions taken in state court and do not have jurisdiction to compel a state or its officers to perform any duty owned to a plaintiff under state law). Accordingly, Chippewa’s Petition shall be dismissed.
Also, the prepared remarks of Associate A.G. Tom Perrelli (ASG.Listening Session Remarks) and Deputy A.G. David W. Ogden (DAG.Listening Session Remarks) from last week’s Minneapolis listening session.
Miigwetch to MBL for this!
Here is the magistrate’s report in Boyd v. Fort Peck Tribes, adopted by the judge a few days ago — Boyd v Fort Peck Tribes R&R
An excerpt:
On September 10, 2009, Petitioner Roberta Boyd filed this action seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 25 U.S.C. § 1303. Petitioner is proceeding pro se.
The Fort Peck Tribal Court ordered Petitioner to pay a $500.00 fine for criminal contempt. Pet. (doc. 1) at 2 ¶¶ 3-4. A writ of habeas corpus is available under 25 U.S.C. § 1303 “to test the legality of his detention by order of an Indian tribe.” The phrase “detention” has the same meaning as “custody” under28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254. Imposition of a fine does not constitute custody or detention. Moore v. Nelson, 270 F.3d 789, 791-92 (9th Cir.2001). The writ of habeas corpus is not available. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this action. It should be dismissed.
I’ll be presenting my paper “Addressing the Epidemic of Domestic Violence in Indian Country by Restoring Tribal Sovereignty” at Columbia Law School today, on the gracious invitation of the Columbia NALSA and Domestic Violence Project.
From ICT:
* * *
Tribal justice advocates largely agree that the funds are only a beginning.
“The funding is good and is an important step, but it is only a partial solution,” said Kirsten Matoy Carlson, a staff attorney with the Indian Law Resource Center.
“What is needed is real legal reform. In addition to funding shortfalls, the Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe loophole still remains.”
* * *
Matthew L.M. Fletcher, director of the Michigan State University Indigenous Law & Policy Center, is grateful for federal awards to address violence in Indian country, but is skeptical about their long-term effects.
“Federal grant money into Indian country is fantastic, and helps build tribal organizational capacity to combat domestic violence and violence against women. Continue reading
Brent Leonhard has drafted a position paper (or recommendations) addressed to Attorney General Eric Holder in anticipation of next week’s listening session in Minneapolis. He is asking for tribes to sign on to the paper.
Here is the paper:
JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS LETTER (draft)
If interested, please contact Brent as soon as possible at:
M. Brent Leonhard
Deputy Attorney General
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
P.O. Box 638
Pendleton, OR 97801
(541) 966-2023
Here is the news article via Pechanga, and here are the documents:
My new paper, “Sovereign Comity: Factors in Recognizing Tribal Court Convictions in State and Federal Courts,” forthcoming in Court Review is available for download on SSRN here.
Here is the abstract:
State and federal courts increasingly are being confronted with prosecutors moving the court to consider prior convictions in American Indian tribal courts during the sentencing phase, and sometimes earlier. If the conviction being introduced occurred in state or federal court, the instant court would be obligated to give full faith and credit to that conviction. But if the prior conviction occurred in a tribal court, state and federal courts are often confronted with unforeseen complexities. This paper is intended to parse through much of the political baggage associated with recognizing tribal court convictions. To be frank, the law is unsettled, leaving little guidance for state and federal judges in these cases, while at the same time granting enormous discretion to judges on the questions involved. The first part of this paper will provide a quick overview of the constitutional status of Indian tribes and tribal courts, as well providing a basic but sufficient introduction to relevant principles of federal Indian law. The second part will offer a summary of criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country and, in particular, what role tribes play – and how well they play it. The third part offers a short description of the key cases in the field, as well as relevant federal and state statutes, and state court rules. It also offers a short normative argument on the question of what state and federal court judges who are confronted with prior tribal court convictions should look for in these cases, especially where the defendants convicted in tribal court are not represented by counsel.
Sarah Deer has published her excellent paper “Decolonizing Rape Law: A Native Feminist Synthesis of Safety and Sovereignty” in the Wicaso Sa Review. (Deer Decolonizing Rape Law)
Here is an excerpt:
The question I raise is–should the tribal government itself respond to such crimes? If yes, how–and what might a Native feminist analysis have to offer in addressing this crisis?
Many people will argue that such crimes are too serious to be handled by contemporary tribal justice systems. (3) Given the numerous legal and financial limitations faced by tribal court systems, they might say, tribal governments must simply rely on the federal (or state) system to prosecute and sentence such rapists. However, this over-reliance on foreign governmental systems has often been to the detriment of Native women. Today, Native women suffer the highest per capita rates of sexual violence in the United States. (4) Conservative estimates suggest that more than one of three Native women in America will be raped during their lifetime. (5) Rape was once extremely rare in tribal communities. (6) Arguably, the imposition of colonial systems of power and control has resulted in Native women being the most victimized group of people in the United States.7 Moreover, statistics indicate that most perpetrators of rape against Native women are white. (8) As a result of a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision, tribal governments have been denied their authority to criminally prosecute non-Indian perpetrators.
You must be logged in to post a comment.