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. * * *

Cash Advance Oral Argument Audio File

Here.

Briefs and materials are here.

Sault Tribe RICO Suit against Vendors

Here are the materials in Sault Ste. Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Hamilton (W.D. Mich.):

Sault Tribe DCT Order

Sault Tribe Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims

Sault Tribe Additional Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims

Sault Tribe Complaint

Federal Civil Rights Complaint against Puyallup Tribal Police Dismissed

Here are the materials in Boyd v. Puyallup Tribal Police (W.D. Wash.):

DCT Order to Show Cause

Boyd Magistrate Report

Boyd DCT Order Adopting Magistrate Report

Wells Fargo Opinion Issued

Here: Decision and Order

Briefs are here, and the trust indenture is here.

LDF — Wells Fargo Trust Indenture

Some have asked, so we’re posting the 86 page trust indenture: Trust Indenture

Removal of Casino Slip and Fall to Federal Court Fails

Here are the materials in Keim v. Harrah’s Operating Co. (S.D. Cal.):

Harrah’s Motion to Dismiss

Harrah’s Response to Order to Show Cause

Keim DCT Order