Here is the order in Tarabochia v. Quinault Indian Nation:

Here is the order in Tarabochia v. Quinault Indian Nation:

Here.
Blurb:
The Gila River Indian Community in Arizona is considering a new law to banish tribal members convicted of violent crimes. A bill awaits a signature from the New York governor that aims to strengthen the Seneca Nation’s ability to enforce tribal laws, which includes removing people convicted of drug trafficking and other crimes. Those are among efforts by tribes to formalize the traditional practice of banishment as tool to combat crime, but such efforts sometimes conflict with modern legal systems. In Alaska, the Native Village of Togiak faces a legal challenge after tribal members forced a man suspected of illicit alcohol sales onto an airplane to another city. We’ll get insights from tribal leaders and Native legal experts on how banishment fits in with modern justice.

Amanda K. Stephen has published “Navigating Tribal Law Research” in the Washington State Bar Journal.
My favorite excerpt:

Here is the complaint in Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. United Here Local #19 (E.D. Cal.):


This August, the Native American Law Center (NALC) will hold its first CLE dedicated to drafting, revising and/or amending tribal codes.
The workshop — led by Professor Eric Eberhard, Associate Director of the NALC, alongside NALC Fellow Avey Menard — will provide focused instruction on legislative drafting techniques that focus on the specifics of tribal codes, including their intersection with federal laws, such as the Indian Civil Rights Act, VAWA and federal environmental statutes and their relationship to tribal courts and other governmental forums.
This two-day intensive workshop will provide you with opportunities to draft an amendment to existing law as well as a standalone piece of legislation of your own choosing within a workshop environment. Professor Eberhard and Fellow Menard will be available to review, comment on and discuss all drafts.
The program will only be offered live, and we anticipate 11.75 MCLE credit hours for those who attend the program. Registration costs $275 and attendance is limited to 15 participants. Make sure to reserve your seat now at the link below!


This August, the Native American Law Center (NALC) will hold its first CLE dedicated to drafting, revising and/or amending tribal codes.
The workshop — led by Professor Eric Eberhard, Associate Director of the NALC, alongside NALC Fellow Avey Menard — will provide focused instruction on legislative drafting techniques that focus on the specifics of tribal codes, including their intersection with federal laws, such as the Indian Civil Rights Act, VAWA and federal environmental statutes and their relationship to tribal courts and other governmental forums.
This two-day intensive workshop will provide you with opportunities to draft an amendment to existing law as well as a standalone piece of legislation of your own choosing within a workshop environment. Professor Eberhard and Fellow Menard will be available to review, comment on and discuss all drafts.
The program will only be offered live, and we anticipate 11.75 MCLE credit hours for those who attend the program. Registration costs $275 and attendance is limited to 15 participants. Make sure to reserve your seat now at the link below!

Here are the materials in Vipond v. Degroat (D. Minn.):
21 Tribal Court Response to Motion to Stay
24 Motion for Preliminary Injunction
33 Opposition to Motion for Stay
37 Tribal Court Opposition to Motion for PI
38 Tribe Opposition to Motion for PI

Here.
Abstract:
For too long, tribal judiciaries have been an afterthought in the story of tribal self-determination. Until the last half-century, many tribal nations relied on federally administered courts or had no court systems at all. As tribal nations continue to develop their law-enforcement and police powers, tribal justice systems now play a critical role in tribal self-determination. But because tribal codes and constitutions tend to borrow extensively from federal and state law, tribal judges find themselves forced to apply and enforce laws that are poor cultural fits for Indian communities—an unfortunate reality that hampers tribal judges’ ability to regulate and improve tribal governance.
Even where tribal legislatures leave room for tribal judges to apply tribal customary law, the results are haphazard at best. This Article surveys a sample of tribal-court decisions that have used customary law to regulate tribal governance. Tribal judges have interpreted customary law when it is expressly incorporated into tribal positive law, they have looked to customary law to provide substantive rules of decision, and they have relied on customary law as an interpretive tool. Reliance on customary law is ascendant, but still rare, in tribal courts.
Recognizing that Indian country will continue to rely on borrowed laws, and aiming to empower tribal courts to advance tribal governance, this Article proposes that tribal judges adopt an Indigenous canon of construction of tribal laws. Elevating a thirty-year-old taxonomy first articulated by Chief Justice Irvin in Stepetin v. Nisqually Indian Community, this Article recommends that tribal judges seek out and apply tribal customary law in cases where (1) the relevant doctrine arose in federal or state statutes or common law; (2) the tribal nation has not explicitly adopted federal or state law on a given issue in writing; (3) written tribal law was adopted or shifted as a result of the colonizer’s pressure and interests; and (4) tribal custom is inconsistent with the written tribal law, most especially if the law violates the relational philosophies of that tribal nation. Tribal judiciaries experienced at applying tribal customary law will be better positioned to do justice in Indian country.

You must be logged in to post a comment.