Here is the opinion in Roberts v. Kelly:
Briefs are here.
Lower court materials are here.
Tribal Codes
Howard Brown and Ray Austin Update Article on Navajo Preference in Employment Act
Howard L. Brown and the Honorable Raymond D. Austin have published “The Navajo Preference in Employment Act: A Review and Update of Cases and Rules, 2010–2012” in the New Mexico Law Review.
The original article from 2010 is here.
Three Tribes Approved for VAWA Jurisdictional Pilot Project
Press release here (pdf) and here.
Details here.
WASHINGTON – Three American Indian tribes – the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona, the Tulalip Tribes of Washington, and the Umatilla Tribes of Oregon – will be the first in the nation to exercise special criminal jurisdiction over certain crimes of domestic and dating violence, regardless of the defendant’s Indian or non-Indian status, under a pilot project authorized by the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA 2013).
Update in Roberts v. Kelly — Nooksack Disenrollment Appeal
Navajo SCT Rules against Navajo Member in Employment Suit with BHP Bilton/New Mexico Coal Co.
Here is the opinion in Jones v. BHP Bilton/New Mexico Coal Co.:
Nooksack Tribal Court Materials on Disenrollees Motion for Contempt
Here are the new materials in St. Germaine v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):
St Germain v. Kelly Motion for Order to Show Cause Re Contempt
St Germain v. Kelly Declaration of Leah Zapata
St. Germain v. Kelly Declaration of Agripina Smith
St. Germain v. Kelly Response to Plaintiffs Motion of Ord to Show Cause Re Contempt
Previous materials in this case are here and here.
Nooksack COA Rules against Nooksack Disenrollees
Here is the opinion in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack App.):
An excerpt:
This appeal is from the Tribal Com1’s order dismissing Appellants· second amended complaint. Appellants requested the Tribal Court enjoin members of the Nooksack Tribal Council from conducting disenrollment proceedings against them. Appellants are understandably gravely concemed at the prospect of disenrollment. We understand how serious the prospect of disenrollment is to Appellants. and how it impacts their cultural. social and political identity.
We also recognize that determining its own membership is a hallmark of a tribe’s sovereignty. It is one of the few aspects of tribal sovereignty that has withstood the relentless attempts by outside forces to tear down tribal self-governance, and one of the few aspects of tribal sovereignty that has not been eroded by the federal government.
Judges are not sages. We do not delude ourselves into believing we have the wisdom of a Solomon. It is not our role to insert ourselves into the Tribe’s political fray. or second guess the political judgments made by the Tribe’s elected leaders or its voting members, even if we believe those judgments unwise. We, like the trial court. are limited to resolving legal questions where authorized by the Tribe’s Constitution and laws.
The nature of this dispute requires us to find the delicate balance between Nooksack lawand politics keeping in mind the equal importance attached to both Tribal membership and Tribal sovereignty. The Tribe’s Constitution guides us in this difficult task. which we are duty bound to perform.
The Nooksack judiciary is not the only Nooksack governmental body whose decisions are tethered to the Tribe’s Constitution and laws. The decisions of its elected officials are as well. The trial judge expressed it well and it is worth repeating:
The Tribal Council members named in this Complaint hold an obligation to act in the best interests of the Nooksack Indian Tribe. Membership and enrollment decisions impact individual lives in the deepest possible ways and those decisions cannot be taken lightly. This Cotut recognizes the serious implications of this case and its decision on this motion and all the others that have preceded it. It is the solemn obligation of this Court to follow the law of the Nooksack Indian Tribe and it is the obligation of the Tribal Council to do the same.
Lower court materials are here.
Little Traverse Odawa Council Rejects Effort to Re-open Marriage Equality Question
Indian Law Resource Center Report on Tribal Capacity for Enhanced Sentencing
Report here.
The Indian Law Resource Center recently released, Restoring Safety to Native Women and Girls and Strengthening Native Nations ─ A Report on Tribal Capacity for Enhanced Sentencing and Restored Criminal Jurisdiction. The report examines existing literature on the readiness among Indian nations to exercise enhanced sentencing authority under TLOA and fuller criminal jurisdiction over all perpetrators of violent crimes under VAWA 2013 or other future legislation. It also identifies challenges facing Indian nations in exercising such authority and how some Indian nations are moving forward to increase their capacity to safeguard Native women in their communities. The report, available at http://indianlaw.org/content/restoring-safety-native-women-and-girls-and-strengthening-native-nations, concludes with ten recommendations aimed at ending violence against Native women and girls and strengthening the ability of Indian nations to address this crisis. We hope that the report will guide the Center, and perhaps others, in better assisting Indian and Alaska Native nations to make their communities safe places.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.