New York Federal Court Orders Tribal Exhaustion in Smoke Shop Dispute at Cayuga

Here are the materials in Cayuga Nation v. Parker (N.D. N.Y.):

Reprinted in Akwesasne Notes, 1970

1 Complaint

2-3 Motion for Injunction

30 Parker Opposition

30-4 Legal Opinion

31 Meyer Opposition

34-1 Parker Motion to Dismiss

35-1 Meyer Motion to Dismiss

37 Reply in Support of 2

40 Opposition to Motions to Dismiss

44 Meyer Reply

45 Parker Reply

45-2 Cayuga Civil Court Order

47-1 Cayuga Civil Court Amended Complaint

White Earth Ojibwe Appellate Court Dismissed Manoomin Suit against Minnesota DNR

Here is the order in Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources v. Manoomin dated March 10, 2022:

Prior post here.

California Federal Court Confirms Tribal Jurisdiction over Nonmember Business

Here are the materials in Rincon Mushroom Corporation of America v. Mazzetti (S.D. Cal.):

166 Rincon Mushroom MSJ

167-1 Tribe MSJ

171 Rincon Mushroom Reply

174 Tribe Reply

Prior post here.

Semi-Split Tenth Circuit Decides Chegup v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation [banishment]

Here is the opinion.

Briefs here.

An excerpt:

We begin by discussing the tribal exhaustion doctrine involved in this case. “[W]hen a federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim arising in Indian country over which a tribal forum has colorable jurisdiction, principles of comity and the federal policy of promoting tribal self-government generally require that the plaintiff fully exhaust tribal remedies before proceeding in federal court.” Restatement of the Law of Am. Indians § 59 cmt. a (Am. Law Inst., Proposed Final Draft 2021).

slip op. at 14.

Maybe a little more Restatement. . . .

Post–Santa Clara Pueblo, federal review has been limited to habeas, leaving tribal courts to adjudicate any other civil rights claims. See Restatement of the Law of Am. Indians § 16 cmt. a (“With the exception of actions for habeas corpus relief [under § 1303, ICRA’s civil rights] guarantees are enforceable exclusively in tribal courts and other tribal fora.”).

slip op. at 21.
Ute Indians camped at Belle Fourche, South Dakota, who are dissatisfied with their treatment: Capt. Johnson, with the Sixth Cavalry from Ft. Meade, S.D., addressing Indians, who they were sent to arrest

And more. . . .

Tribal exhaustion doctrine exists to preserve tribal sovereignty and prevent the federal courts from running roughshod over tribal legal systems. See Norton, 862 F.3d at 1243; Restatement of the Law of Am. Indians § 28 cmt. a (“[A]djudication of matters impairing reservation affairs by any nontribal court . . . infringes upon tribal law-making authority, because tribal courts are best qualified to interpret and apply tribal law.”).

Slip op. at 34.

Ann Tweedy on Tribal Firearms Regs

Ann Tweedy has posted “Tribes, Firearm Regulation, and the Public Square,” forthcoming in the U.C. Davis Law Review, on SSRN.

Professor Tweedy

Here is the abstract:

This paper explores tribal policies towards firearm regulation through four different lenses. First, tribal participation in recent state and federal legislative debates regarding firearm regulation is explored. Second, the essay examines ways that Native Americans continue to be harmed by notions of savagery, including through high rates of victimization of violent crime and high rates of police killings. Third, it explores the historical importance of firearms for many tribal cultures. Finally, tribal firearm regulations are examined, specifically in the context of laws regulating the ability to bring firearms into sensitive spaces and those relating to use of firearms in a threatening manner.

Eighth Circuit Rejects MHA Nation Citizens’ Voting Rights Suit

Here is the opinion in Cross v. Fox.

Briefs:

Lower court materials here.

Fort Berthold Agency