Tribal Codes

Standing Rock Children’s Code RFP

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (Tribe) is now accepting Proposals from qualified individuals, organizations or firms for the development of a Children’s Code for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s Code of Justice.  The Tribe currently has a Children’s Code but the current version is in need of revision to reflect changes in the law and current practices.

The successful Proposal should reflect experience working with Tribes and Tribal Courts. Experience in Code drafting and development, knowledge of the issues facing Children’s Courts, knowledge of the law as it pertains to Abuse and Neglect proceedings, Delinquency, Status offenses, Indian Child Welfare proceedings, Custody, Termination and Adoptions issues/ proceedings and Title IVE requirements.   The Tribe also seeks to implement traditions and customs where applicable or necessary.

Requested Information: A) Cover Letter B) Outline of Experience working with: (1) Abuse & Neglect cases; and, (2) Title IV(e). C) Two (2) years minimum experience in each case type is recommended but not required. D) Whether the Bidder is Tribal or Indian Owned. Copies of tribal identification cards must be included to support the statement. Indian owned is defined as any business that is at least fifty-one percent (51%) owned by an individual who is an enrolled member of a federally recognized tribe; E) detailed breakdown of cost(s) of preparation; and, F) References.

Deadline for submission is January 19, 2018 at 4:00pm CST.  The Tribe reserves the right to select, any bid or no bid. Proposals should be submitted in PDF format via email to: dagard@standingrock.org. Sealed proposals will be received in person at SRST Tribal Court, c/o Melvin White Eagle Building, 101 Agency Avenue, Fort Yates, ND 58538 or mailed to SRST Court, P.O. Box 363 Fort Yates, ND 58538, Attn. D. Agard, Court Administrator.

ABA Human Rights Journal: “Tribal Disenrollment Demands a Tribal Answer”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

William R. Norman Jr., Kirke Kickingbird, and Adam P. Bailey have published “Tribal Disenrollment Demands a Tribal Answer” in the ABA Human Rights Journal.

Idaho SCT Enforces Coeur d’Alene Tribal Court Order against Nonmembers

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Coeur d’Alene Tribe v. Johnson. (PDF)

An excerpt:

Here, the Johnsons assert that the Tribal Court is dominated by the Tribe. They point to the tribal law stating that the Tribe has jurisdiction over the river and to the amount of the fine imposed against them. As discussed above, the Johnsons have failed to show that the Tribe does not have jurisdiction over the bed of the St. Joe River adjoining their property. Further, while the fine was large, it was only one-fifth of that authorized by the tribal code. CTC 44-24.01 (authorizing a fine of $500 per day for unlicensed encroachments). We hold that the Johnsons have failed to show that the Tribal Court was biased. 

Further, the Johnsons had more than sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard in the Tribal Court. The record shows the Johnsons were informed of the proceedings on four occasions before default judgment was entered. Despite this, they elected to simply ignore the proceedings in Tribal Court. The Johnsons were not denied due process.

Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to Tulalip Land Use Ordinances for Lack of Ripeness

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Mitchell v. Tulalip Tribes of Washington (W.D. Wash.):

6 motion to dismiss

7 response

11 reply

12 dct order

Tavares v. Whitehouse Cert Petition (United Auburn Indian Community Banishment)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Cert Petition

Question presented:

This case presents a question that divides the circuits: Should the “detention” requirement for habeas review under the ICRA be construed “more narrowly than” the “custody” showing required under other federal habeas statutes?

Lower court materials here.

UPDATE (10/27/17): Amicus Brief

Brief in Opposition

Reply

“Tribal Justice” Doc Airing Tonight

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Federal Court Dismisses Slip and Fall Action against Fort Mojave Indian Tribe’s Casino Operations

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Ireson v. AVI Casino Enterprises (D. Nev.):

8 Motion to Dismiss

11 Response

16 Reply

21 DCT Order

Federal Court Dismisses Casino Patron Effort to Overrule Tribal Tort Claims Act Interpretation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Wilson v. Umpqua Indian Development Corporation (D. Or.):

1 Complaint

1-7 Tribal Court Decision

15 Motion to Dismiss

Kansas Appellate Court Orders Resentencing of Kickapoo Tribal Member

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in State v. Horselooking:

State v Horselooking

An excerpt:

Alvin P. Horselooking, Jr., appeals his sentence following his convictions of aggravated battery and driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). The district court assigned Horselooking a criminal history score of B based in part on his Kickapoo Nation tribal conviction of residential burglary, which the district court scored as a person felony for criminal history purposes. However, the Kickapoo Nation Tribal Code does not designate burglary as being either a felony or a misdemeanor offense. As his sole issue on appeal, Horselooking claims the district court erred when it scored his prior Kickapoo tribal conviction as a felony for criminal history purposes. Because we agree with Horselooking’s claim, we vacate his sentence and remand for the district court to resentence Horselooking using the correct criminal history score.

Split Ninth Circuit Panel Finds Colorable Navajo Labor Commission Jurisdiction over Window Rock School District

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion in Window Rock School District v. Nez.

An excerpt from the court’s syllabus:

The panel held that it was “colorable or plausible” that the tribal adjudicative forum, the Navajo Nation Labor Commission, had jurisdiction because the claims arose from conduct on tribal land over which the Navajo Nation had the right to exclude nonmembers, and the claims implicated no state criminal law enforcement interests. Well-established exhaustion principles therefore required that the tribal forum have the first opportunity to evaluate its own jurisdiction, including the nature of the state and tribal interests involved.

Briefs and lower court materials here.