Tribal Codes – Page 10

Anishinaabe (Odawa, Bodewadmi, and Ojibwe) legal and political philosophy is buried under the infrastructure of modern self-determination law and policy. Modern Anishinaabe tribes are rough copies of American governments. The Anishinaabeg (people) usually choose their ogemaag (leaders) through an at-large election process that infects tribal politics with individualized self-interest. Those elected leaders, what I call ogemaakaan (artificial leaders) preside over modern governments that encourage hierarchy, political opportunism, and tyranny of the majority. While modern tribal governments are extraordinary successes compared to the era of total federal control, a significant number of tribes face intractable political disputes that can traced to the philosophical disconnect from culture and tradition.

Anishinaabe philosophy prioritizes ogemaag who are deferential and serve as leaders only for limited purposes and times. Ogemaag are true representatives who act only when and how instructed to do so by their constituents. Their decisions are rooted in cultural and traditional philosophies, including for example Mino-Bimaadiziwin (the act of living a good life), Inawendewin (relational accountability), Niizhwaaswii Mishomis/Nokomis Kinoomaagewinawaan (the Seven Gifts the Grandfathers or Grandmothers), and the Dodemaag (clans). I offer suggestions on how modern tribal government structures can be lightly modified to restore much of this philosophy.

Nooksack Update [Updated 2/17/20]

February 3, 2020March 4, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “A woman took a stand against tribal disenrollment and paid for it” in High Country News.

Updates in pending litigation….

Doucette v. Bernhardt (W.D. Wash.):

Doucette v. Bernhardt 45. 1-29-20 Rule 62.1 Motion for Indicative Ruling on Plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b) and 15(a)(2) Motions

Doucette v. Bernhardt 46-1. 1-29-20 Exhibit A

Doucette v. Bernhardt 46-2. 1-29-20 Exhibit B

Doucette v. Bernhardt 46-3. 1-29-20 Exhibit C

Doucette v. Bernhardt 46-4. 1-29-20 Exhibit D

Doucette v. Bernhardt Ninth Circuit 8. 1-29-20 Notice of Rule 62.1 Motion for Indicative Ruling on Plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b) and 15(a)(2) Motions

Rabang v. Kelly (W.D. Wash.):

Rabang v. Kelly 175. 1-29-20 Notice of Rule 62.1 Motion for Indicative Ruling on Plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b) and 15(a)(2) Motions

Rabang v. Kelly Ninth Circuit 42. 1-29-20 Notice of Rule 62.1 Motion for Indicative Ruling on Plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b) and 15(a)(2) Motions

UPDATE:

Tribe Response to Motion

U.S. Response

North Dakota SCT Affirms State Court Jurisdiction over Reservation Housing Eviction Matter

January 27, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Gustafson v. Poitra: Opinion

Excerpt:

Linus and Raymond Poitra appeal the district court judgment of eviction. The Poitras argue the district court erred by exercising jurisdiction over this matter, and by sending a North Dakota law enforcement officer onto the reservation to evict tribal members from property within the Turtle Mountain Reservation. We affirm.

Briefs:

Appellant Brief

Appellee Brief

Wolters Kluwer (Aspen) Publishes Second Edition of Fletcher’s American Indian Tribal Law

January 24, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Website here.

Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to Ute Banishment

December 5, 2019Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order in Chegup v. Ute Indian Tribal Court of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (D. Utah):

85-dct-order.pdf

Briefs here.

Fletcher Materials for NAICJA Presentation on Tribal Attorney Regulation and ABA Rule 8.4(g) (Andrew Adams and Kristen Carpenter will join me)

October 17, 2019October 17, 2019Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Kristen’s paper is here.

These are excerpts of Fletcher’s presentation:

Continue reading →

Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. CenturyTel of the Midwest – Kendall, LLC

October 14, 2019February 17, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials so far:

pld-2019-08-02-centurytel-petition-for-writ-of-mandamus-or-alternatively-writ-of-prohibition.pdf

pld-2019-09-03-centurytel_s-brief.pdf

pld-2019-1001-tribe_s-appellate-brief-rc-v.-centurytel-of-midwest-kendall-llc.pdf

PLD 2019-09-03 Appendix to Century Link Brief

Muscogee Primary Election Results Vacated

October 3, 2019Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in In re Tiger (Muscogee (Creek) Supreme Court):

doc.-3-order-and-opinion-100219-2.pdf

News coverage here.

Alex Skibine on Legislating Tribal Civil Jurisdiction Over Non-Members

September 30, 2019Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Alexander Tallchief Skibine has posted a very interesting paper, “Incorporation Without Assimilation: Legislating Tribal Civil Jurisdiction Over Non-Members,” on SSRN. It is forthcoming in the UCLA Law Review Discourse.

The abstract:

For the last 40 years the Supreme Court has been engaged in a measured attack on the sovereignty of Indian tribes when it comes to tribal court jurisdiction over people who are not members of the tribe asserting that jurisdiction. The Congress has already enacted legislation partially restoring some tribal courts’ criminal jurisdiction over non-members. This Essay proposes to legislatively reconfirm the civil jurisdiction of tribal courts over such non-members. After examining the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in this area and summarizing the Court’s main concerns with such tribal jurisdiction, this Essay explores various legislative options before settling on a preferred course of action. The proposal set forth in the last part of this Essay would reconfirm tribal court civil jurisdiction over non-members provided the tribal courts has established personal jurisdiction over the parties. However, tribal courts’ determinations on this subject would be appealable to federal courts. Furthermore, the Essay proposes to allow non-members being sued in tribal courts the option of removing their cases to federal courts under certain conditions.