judges – Turtle Talk

Proposed Evidence Rule Would Put Tribal Records on Equal Footing and Could Ease Proof of Indian Status in Federal Prosecutions

September 29, 2026September 28, 2026Wenona Singel

Russell Means shakes hands with Assistant Attorney General Kent Frizzell, father of Judge Gregory Frizzell of the Northern District of Oklahoma, as AIM signs a treaty to end the occupation of Wounded Knee; National Guardian Photographs; PHOTOS 213; box 9; folder 26; Tamiment Library/Robert F. Wagner Labor Archives, New York University.

The federal judiciary has proposed amending Federal Rule of Evidence 902(1) to add “a federally recognized Indian Tribe or Nation” to the governments whose sealed and signed public documents are self-authenticating.

The sovereignty argument is simple. Rule 902 already covers the United States, states, territories, political subdivisions, and even the former Panama Canal Zone. The Advisory Committee saw “no reason to differentiate” Tribes and Nations, and its proposed Committee Note says the amendment recognizes Tribal sovereignty and would conserve Tribal officials’ resources.

Eight Tribes of the 574 contacted for comments responded to the Committee’s outreach, and all supported the amendment. Their comments emphasized sovereign parity, the unfairness of treating Tribal government records differently from those of other sovereigns, and the burden of requiring Tribal officials to provide extra authentication for routine official records.

But the present push for the amendment is also tied to the post-McGirt expansion of federal Indian country criminal prosecutions in Oklahoma. Judge Gregory Frizzell of the Northern District of Oklahoma revived the proposal in 2024, and DOJ then advocated the amendment in part to address “inefficiencies and proof problems” in cases requiring proof of the Indian status of defendants or victims.

That matters because prosecutors recently lost convictions in a handful of cases after problems admitting evidence of Indian status. But those cases didn’t necessarily turn on issues that the proposed amendment to Rule 902 would address.

The Federal Defenders have voiced opposition to the proposed amendment. One concern they’ve highlighted is a scenario involving a non-Indian defendant prosecuted under the General Crimes Act for an offense against an Indian victim. Such a defendant may have no personal knowledge of the victim’s Indian status and little ability to investigate the relevant underlying records. Assistant Federal Public Defender Jami Johnson (Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma) argues that the amendment could, “as a practical matter,” function like an irrebuttable presumption on that element.

The deeper tension is that while Tribal governments have a strong claim to equal treatment as sovereigns, the United States is also pushing for the rule amendment to strengthen its own exercise of criminal jurisdiction in Indian country.

Opportunity to weigh in

Dec. 8, 2026: Deadline to request to testify
Jan. 11, 2027: Evidence Rules hearing via Zoom
Feb. 15, 2027: Written comments due
Comments: Regulations.gov, Docket USC-RULES-EV-2026-0036

Additional Resources

2026 Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules
Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules Agenda Books
Tribal Comments Submitted on Proposed Amendment to FRE 902(1)
May 2026 Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules Report
Five Federal District Judges’ Letter Supporting the Amendment
Federal Public Defender Submission Opposing the Amendment, submitted by Ebise Bayisa and Jami Johnson (Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma)
Judge Gregory Frizzell’s Rule 902 Suggestion

Tribal Courts in Action: Northern Cheyenne Court Rules on the Relationship Between the Tribal Constitution and Traditional Authority

September 6, 2026August 31, 2026Wenona Singel

The Northern Cheyenne Tribal Court recently granted partial summary judgment in a case arising from a dispute between Northern Cheyenne Traditional Chiefs invoking asserted traditional authority and members of the Tribe’s elected Council.

Judge Frans Andersson held that the September 10, 2025 Chiefs’ Declaration, which purported to remove eight elected Council members, was void and had no legal effect. Because those officials had never lawfully been removed, the court also concluded that the subsequent special election could not create a lawful replacement Council. The defendants were ordered to “immediately peaceably surrender” control of the Council offices and government resources to the plaintiff Council members.

What’s especially interesting is the court’s treatment of custom and tradition. The opinion doesn’t treat them as irrelevant to Tribal governance. Rather, it recognizes their continuing cultural and political significance while distinguishing that influence from the exercise of governmental power under the Tribe’s Constitution.

Any exercise of the inherent power of custom and tradition must occur within the bounds of the law governing the Tribe.

In other words, custom and tradition can inform and legitimate Tribal governance, but under the Northern Cheyenne governmental structure addressed in this case, they cannot independently displace the Constitution’s procedures for removing elected officials. Traditional leaders remain free to pursue political change through mechanisms available under Tribal law, including the constitutional referendum process.

Tim Connors to Receive Michigan State Bar’s “Hero of ADR” Award

August 27, 2026Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Grand River Band Chairman Ron Yob Speaking at the Michigan Tribal-State-Federal Judicial Forum

May 18, 2026Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Native America Calling Spotlight on Washington State Supreme Court Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis

May 18, 2026Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Klamath Tribes Challenge Orders Based on Secret Agreement Between Irrigator Group and State

December 9, 2025December 9, 2025Matthew Campbell

On November 19, 2025, the Klamath Tribes filed a motion to amend their petition in the Circuit Court of Klamath County. The amended petition seeks to reverse recent illegal orders that replaced a long-time administrative law judge in the Klamath Basin Adjudication (KBA) on the heels of a secret deal cut between the Oregon State Office of Administrative Hearings and certain water users in the Upper Klamath Basin. Here is the amended petition:

2025-12-04 Klamath Tribes Am Pet for Relief from Non-Final Order or Pet for Writ of Mandamus Download

The KBA is a several-decades-old lawsuit pending in the Circuit Court of Klamath County. It is quantifying the federal reserved water rights of the Klamath Tribes in the Klamath River Basin. The KBA involves administrative hearings conducted by the Office of Administrative Hearings, which made initial determinations on the Tribes’ water rights claims. Extensive proceedings were conducted at the Office from 2006 to 2012, and the Klamath County Circuit Court recently returned cases there for additional proceedings.

Judge Tim Connors on “Rights, Relationships, Responsibilities”

May 19, 2025Matthew L.M. Fletcher

In the Detroit Legal News, here.

An excerpt:

Over 30 years ago in Michigan, then Supreme Court Chief Justice Michael Cavanagh began a relationship with our Tribal Courts. His initial words were prophetic to our neighbors: “We know we have more to learn from you than you do from us.” And so, it began. We have only scratched the surface of what we can learn. We can learn because there is a need, perhaps a necessity, that we open spaces and places for incorporating other world views and create procedures that nurture values that address areas of conflict in our communities.