Lower Sioux Not Necessary Party in State Ct. Contract Claim; Tribal Court Claims May Continue

This case is Lower Sioux Indian Community v. Kraus-Anderson Const. Co. (Minn. App.). Here is the unpublished opinion.

An exceprt:

Because Lower Sioux is not a necessary party to this litigation, we reverse the district court’s order joining Lower Sioux as a party and enjoining it from pursuing parallel tribal court litigation.
The determination that Lower Sioux is not a necessary party is dispositive. Thus, we need not reach and do not reach the parties’ dispute over whether Lower Sioux waived its sovereign immunity, either contractually or by initiating the district court action. Nor do we take any position on the jurisdiction of the tribal court over the subcontractor respondents or whether the subcontractors may be joined as parties to the tribal court proceedings. Those determinations are for the tribal court. See Klammer v. Lower Sioux Convenience Store, 535 N.W.2d 379, 381 (Minn.App.1995) (explaining that comity requires allowing tribal court to determine its own jurisdiction); Rule 12(c) of the Lower Sioux Community in the State of Minnesota Judicial Code Rules of Civil Procedure, available at http://maiba.org/pdf/LowerSioux.pdf (addressing standard for joinder in tribal court). We also deny as moot Kraus-Anderson’s motions to modify the record and to strike portions of one respondent’s brief because the disputes raised by the motions are relevant only to the issues that we have declined to reach.

Cert Opposition in Rosenberg v. Hualapai

Here: Hualapai Cert Opp

Cert petition is here.

Federal Court Orders Bois Forte Band Casino to Comply with NLRB Subpoena

Here are the materials so far in NLRB v. Fortune Bay Resort Casino (D. Minn.):

NLRB Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum

Bois Forte Band Response to Motion for Subpoena

NLRB Reply in Support of Motion

Fortune Bay Magistrate Report

Bois Forte Band Objection to Magistrate Report

NLRB Response to Objection

Fortune Bay DCT Order Granting Subpoena Duces Tecum Motion

Federal Court Declines to Dismiss Contract Claim against Iowa Tribe

The court found that whether the tribe waived immunity was a factual dispute.

Morgan Buildings & Spas v. Iowa Tribe

Smith and Baum on Labor Laws and Indian Country

from ICT:

There’s an old adage that law professors like to use: Bad facts make bad law; in the area of tribal labor and employment law, watch out – if the facts set up the wrong way, irreparable damage will be done to tribal self-government in this field. This is a problem (or opportunity) for tribal sovereignty in the way that the test case ofBrown v. Board of Education was for the civil rights movement.

There’s been plenty of “bad press” about tribes “getting away with” practices in the workplace that may look wrong to outsiders. The assertion of sovereign immunity against individual employees may exacerbate tensions. In dismissing an action for unpaid wages brought by tribal employees, the Crow Court of Appeals recently warned, “If the tribe does not take steps to enact appropriate waivers of sovereign immunity, we believe it is only a question of when Congress will do it for us.” The Crow Tribe later enacted law to protect its workforce.

There’s an old adage that law professors like to use: Bad facts make bad law; in the area of tribal labor and employment law, watch out.

It’s probably more likely that the Supreme Court, not Congress, will decide whether tribes and their enterprises must succumb to federal authority over union rights, age and other discrimination laws, and a host of other federal laws governing employment relations. For now anyway, Congress is distracted by other issues. So what will a case look like that goes up to the high court?

With non-Indians taking up employment positions in Indian country in droves, federal agencies are looking for opportunities to enforce federal labor laws of general application against tribes. Tribes cannot assert the sovereign immunity defense against the United States; so these cases go forward. The question becomes whether Congress (when silent on the issue) intended such laws to apply to tribes.
Continue reading

Allen v. Mayhew: Magistrate Recommends Denial of Motion to Dismiss 1981 Claims against Tribal Gaming Officials

Here is the report: Allen v Mayhew Magistrate Report

The most recent motion to dismiss: Mayhew Motion to Dismiss

Previous orders are here.

An excerpt:

As to the two remaining defendants, reading Plaintiff’s complaint liberally, he alleges that while he was an employee of the Gold Country Casino in 2003, he took the defendant Mayhews’ grandchildren into his home. He later petitioned the Tribe for tribal membership for these children, and was told he would be reimbursed for his expenses regarding the children but was warned “not to go to the white man’s court.” However, despite this warning, Plaintiff filed guardianship proceedings in the California state court in September 2003. As a result, he contends defendants Mattie and Ricky Mayhew conspired together to file false allegations against him, with the intent to have his employment with the Casino terminated in retaliation for availing himself of the state court system and because he is white. He was subsequently terminated from his employment, allegedly due to these false allegations.

Ugly Story: Tribal Law Allegedly Steers Tort Victim to Legal Dead End

If this story is true, then this tribe should do the right thing. This bad press for all of Indian Country.

From the San Diego Union Tribune via Pechanga:

During a visit to Sycuan Casino five years ago, Sarah Harris walked into a restroom altercation that she says changed her life.

Now, after what feels like countless hearings on the Indian reservation and in federal court, the 75-year-old former diesel engine mechanic still doesn’t have the $160,000 an arbitrator says she’s due.

Although tribal law says arbitration awards are to be enforced in federal court, the tribe has convinced a federal judge that he has no jurisdiction over the case.

* * *

Sycuan’s lawyers say it wasn’t an intentional dead end.

“The ordinance surely wasn’t written to steer parties to a forum the tribe knew was not going to enforce something; that was not at all the tribe’s intent,” said lawyer Jay Shapiro. “Sometimes documents get written at times when it’s not clear what the law is, or what cases a federal court will hear or not hear.”

I hope this lawyer was misquoted because this statement is awful and wrong. Such an ordinance should be amended immediately, and at a later paragraph in the same article, another tribal lawyer says it will “look at rewording the ordinance.”

The tribe doesn’t want to pay the $160,000 because a tribal arbitrator failed to follow the rules when making the award, which is reasonable in most contexts, but not this one.

The link to the three district court opinions is here.

Michigan Bar Journal Special Indian Law Issue — UPDATED!

Here:

State Court Administrative Office – Court Improvement Program: Indian Child Welfare Act Forum Remarks, October 6, 2008
by Justice Michael F. Cavanagh

Indian Children and Termination of Parental Rights: Michigan Supreme Court Takes a Step in the Right Direction in In Re Lee
by Angel Sorrells, Cami Fraser, Thomas Myers, and Aaron Allen

Proceed with Prudence: Advising Clients Doing Business in Indian Country
by R. Lance Boldrey and Jason Hanselman

Indian Gaming and Tribal Self-Determination: Reconsidering the 1993 Tribal-State Gaming Compacts
by Zeke Fletcher

Indian Country Law Enforcement and Cooperative Public Safety Agreements
by Matthew L. M. Fletcher, Kathryn E. Fort, and Wenona T. Singel

And I completely missed this article in the same issue (many apologies to the authors!):

In the Law: Keeping Current with American Indian Legal Resources
by Jan Bissett and Margi Heinen

Lil’ Brown Smoke Shop v. Wasden — Challenge to Idaho Tobacco Statute

The court denied a motion for a preliminary injunction by a smoke shop seeking to prevent enforcement of Idaho’s Minor’s Access Act. Here are the materials:

Lil Brown Smoke Shack DCT Order

Lil Brown Smoke Shack Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Idaho Opposition

Lil Brown Smoke Shack Reply

An excerpt:

Here, Defendants argue that, if the Bracker balancing test applies, the permit requirement is an important state interest outweighing the tribal interests. Specifically, Defendants argue that the permit requirement allows the State of Idaho to control the ability of minors to obtain tobacco by ensuring that the Department of Health and Welfare has a central repository of all businesses marketing tobacco to Idaho residents with a uniform set of data which facilities compliance and monitoring. Defendants contend this interest outweighs the relevant tribal interests identified by Plaintiff, partially because the burden on Plaintiff in submitting annually to a no-charge permit is non existent. However, Defendants do not address Plaintiff’s contention that the right to make employment decisions, business decisions, and the right to exclude persons from the reservation are longstanding tribal interests that, although they do not singularly justify non compliance with the MAA, must be balanced in the Bracker test particularly with respect to the other contested provisions of the MAA. The Court agrees that the Bracker test should be applied.

The Court finds that, even though the Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits with respect to the permit requirement is low, the likelihood of success with respect to the other provisions of the MAA is more plausible. However, Plaintiff has failed to clearly demonstrate that it is likely to succeed on these claims. Thus, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction on Plaintiff’s tribal sovereignty challenges will be denied.

28 U.S.C. 1362 Doesn’t Waive Tribal Sovereign Immunity

Well, someone was bound to try it. 🙂

Turner v. McGee (N.D. Okla.)

An excerpt:

Petitioner, a member of the Kiowa Tribe, has brought this pro se action seeking injunctive relief against four administrative law judges employed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Respondents as administrative law judges preside over cases brought before the Court of Indian Offenses for the Kiowa Tribe. Petitioner seeks injunctive relief relative to decisions rendered by respondents while acting in their official capacities as administrative law judges.
Indian tribal governments, such as the Kiowa Tribe, enjoy immunity from suit the same as any other sovereign power. Tribal governments are subject to suit only where suit has been expressly authorized by Congress or the tribe has waived its immunity. * * *