…but still holds that a signed tribal waiver can be authorized by the presence of 5 of 7 tribal council members (instead of an affirmative vote in a regular meeting required by the tribal constitution).
Here is the order:
Storevisions Modified Opinion.
Here are the materials:
Here is the opinion in California Parking Services v. Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians.
Here are the available briefs:
Here is the opinion and selected materials from Furry v. Miccosukee Tribe (S.D. Fla.):
DCT Order Dismissing Furry Complaint
Miccosukee Motion to Dismiss Furry Complaint
Furry Response to Motion to Dismiss
Miccosukee Response to Motion for Discovery on Grounds for Sovereign Immunity
Here are the materials in Rogers-Dial v. Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians (S.D. Cal.):
DCT Order Dismissing Rogers-Dial Complaint
Rogers-Dial Motion for PI — Part 1
Rogers-Dial Motion for PI — Part 2
Rogers-Dial Motion for PI — Part 3
We posted the complaint here.
Here are the materials in this stage of a long saga — Hollywood Mobile Estates v. Cypress (S.D. Fla.):
DCT Order Granting Hollywood Mobile Estates Motion
Here is the petition in MTE Financial Services v. Alameda County Superior Court:
Here is the opinion in New Gaming Systems v. Sac and Fox Nation:
The case is Dilliner v. Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, 2011 OK 61, No. 109805. From the opinion:
Plaintiffs ask us to conclude that, because the Business Committee granted authority to Chief Spicer to sign employment contracts with tribal employees for three year terms at their current positions and salaries, those contracts must have been approved and ratified in all particulars, including the limited waiver of sovereign immunity. We do not agree with plaintiffs’ position. Federal law requires that the waiver of sovereign immunity be express and unequivocal; it cannot be implied. The Tribe’s Constitution and By-Laws do not authorize the Chief to waive the Tribe’s sovereign immunity.
¶20 Waiver of sovereign immunity was neither expressed nor consented to in the Business Committee’s resolutions that authorized the Chief to sign the employment contracts. Neither of the resolutions expressly ratified the contracts that Chief Spicer entered into: Resolution #27-072607 only authorized the Chief to sign a contract with tribal employees for a three year term, in their present positions of employment and at their present salaries; Resolution #46-081407 ratified only the resolution, not the contracts. We must conclude that under these circumstances, there was no express and unequivocal waiver of the Tribe’s sovereign immunity.5
¶21 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
The bill “To clarify the rights of Indians and Indian tribes on Indian lands under the National Labor Relations Act” was introduced last week and the text of the bill became available today.
H.R. 2335 (text)
Here’s a link to other information about the bill.
Finally, a story on the bill from The Daily Republic:
WASHINGTON — U.S. Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., introduced legislation Thursday to clarify that the National Labor Relations Board does not have jurisdiction over tribally owned businesses on reservation land as a matter tribal sovereignty.
In 2004 the National Labor Relations Board, which is the federal agency of the U.S. government charged with conducting elections for labor union representation and other labor-related duties, determined that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) applies to activities on reservation lands. This bill would reverse that decision. The legislation stands to defend tribal sovereignty and promote economic opportunities on reservations lands by eliminating ambiguity in existing federal law. Continue reading
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.