Here.
News Profile: “Can Oglala Sioux Tribe ban Gov. Kristi Noem from reservation? Here’s what the law says”
Here.
Tribal Codes
Bay Mills Marijuana Ordinance and Press Release
Request for Information on Tribal Government Responses to #MeToo
I am an attorney, adjunct professor, and scholar conducting research on tribal responses to #MeToo. If you know of Tribes that have adopted personnel policies or code provisions in response to the #MeToo movement and are able to send me information or links to the relevant provisions, I would greatly appreciate it. You can reach me at ann at anntweedy.com. Thank you in advance!
Wilson v. Horton’s Towing Cert Petition [Montana; Exhaustion; Civil Forfeiture]
Here:
Questions presented:
1. Does an Indian Tribe have authority under the second exception of Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), to forfeit automobiles owned by non Native Americans for violation of tribal drug laws while on tribal land?
2. If so, does the Tribe have authority to seize a motor vehicle off reservation if it has probable cause to believe that the automobile previously contained illegal drugs while on tribal lands?
Lower court materials here.
Fletcher: “Law, Politics, and the Constitution”
Here, on SSRN.
The abstract:
The question whether Congress may create legal classifications based on Indian status under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is now reaching a critical point. Critics claim the Constitution allows no room to create race or ancestry based legal classifications. The critics are wrong.
When it comes to Indian affairs, the Constitution is not colorblind. Textually, I argue, the Indian Commerce Clause and Indians Not Taxed Clause serve as express authorization for Congress to create legal classifications based on Indian race and ancestry, so long as those classifications are not arbitrary, as the Supreme Court stated a century ago in United States v. Sandoval and more recently in Morton v. Mancari.
Should the Supreme Court reconsider those holdings, I suggest there are significant structural reasons why the judiciary should refrain from applying strict scrutiny review of Congressional legal classifications. The reasons are rooted in the political question doctrine and the institutional incapacity of the judiciary. Who is an Indian is a deeply fraught question to which judges have no special institutional capacity to assess.
Federal Court Dismisses Complaint Asking an Order to Force Oneida Business Committee to Hold Meeting on Per Caps
Here are the materials in Dallas v. Hill (E.D. Wis.):
Mitchell v. Tulalip Tribes Cert Petition
Here:
UPDATE:
Question presented:
Does sovereign immunity bar the federal courts’ consideration of a declaratory judgment action to determine whether Respondent Tribes can exercise regulatory/taxing authority over real property owned in fee by Petitioners non-Indians, pursuant to allotments that were authorized by the Tribes’ treaty with the United States?
Lower court materials here.
Fourth Circuit Briefs in Williams v. Big Picture Loans
Ninth Circuit Briefs in FMC Corp. v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
GTB Press Release: “Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians Implements Authority to Prosecute All Persons, Including Non-Indians, for Domestic Violence”
Here:
Peshawbestown, MI – During a legislative session today, the Tribal Council of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians (GTB) enacted amendments to the Domestic Violence Ordinance authorizing tribal police and justice officials to investigate and prosecute domestic violence crimes committed by non-Indians on tribal lands. Non-Indians who live or work on the reservation or have a marriage or dating relationship with a Native person now may be prosecuted by GTB for domestic and dating violence crimes, and for criminal violations of certain protection orders. Individuals who commit these crimes in Indian country can be arrested by tribal police, prosecuted in the Tribal Court, and sentenced to incarceration. Crimes committed outside of Indian country, between two strangers, between two non-Indians, or by a person without sufficient ties to GTB are not covered by the law.
The law guarantees substantive and procedural protections to the accused, including the rights to a jury trial, to an attorney, and to stay proceedings in the Tribal Court to petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a court of the United States.
“The epidemic of violence against Native women has worsened as a result of tribal governments’ forced reliance on distant federal officials for justice. Domestic violence demands a local solution. At long last, we have one,” said Council Chair Sam McClellan. “Tribal law enforcement officers are no longer required to obtain federal permission to arrest a non-Indian who perpetrates domestic violence against an Indian. Bad actors who assault our women are on notice: They will be prosecuted and put in jail.”
For the first time since 1978, when the U.S. Supreme Court stripped tribal governments of their criminal authority over non-Indians in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA 2013) has authorized Indian tribes to reassert a portion of their inherent governmental authority to investigate, prosecute, convict, and sentence non-Indians who commit crimes in Indian country. The legislation begins the process of eliminating a jurisdictional gap on tribal lands that has for far too long endangered Native men, women, and children by tying the hands of tribal law enforcement.
Approximately twenty tribes around the United States have implemented the jurisdiction. By adding GTB to that list, the Grand Traverse Band Tribal Council demonstrates its commitment to confronting domestic violence, and to reversing the lasting damage it inflicts on Native families.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.