New Student Scholarship on Tribal Waivers of Immunity by Unauthorized Tribal Officials

Adam Keith, a Penn Law student, has published “Who Should Pay for the Errors of the Tribal Agent?: Why Courts Should Enforce Contractual Waivers of Tribal Immunity When an Agent Exceeds Her Authority under Tribal Law.” The article appears in the Penn Journal of Business Law. The article criticizes a recent Sixth Circuit decision on the immunity of Section 17 corporations.

Here is a snippet:

When tribal commercial organizations engage in commercial dealings, their non-tribal counterparties almost universally insist that a waiver of tribal immunity be included within any contractual agreement so as to retain their access to state and federal courts should they decide to litigate any commercial disputes against the tribal entity. In a recent case, the Sixth Circuit weakened the reliability of these waivers by ruling that the court will not enforce such a waiver when a tribal agent assents to one while possessing only apparent authority in the eyes of the tribal counterparty but not actual authority under tribal law. This comment will argue that there are three reasons that courts should enforce such waivers: because doing so is consistent with the principles associated with waivers of tribal immunity; because it will not have deleterious effects on tribal sovereignty; and because it will improve the efficiency of tribal commercial dealings with non-tribal entities.

Opening Ninth Circuit Brief Grand Canyon Skywalk Case

Here:

GCSD Opening Brief

Here is our last posting on the district court case.

Diné CARE File Another Suit to Stop Coal Mine at Navajo Mine

Here is the complaint in Diné Citizens against Ruining Our Environment v. United States Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (D. Colo.):

Dine CARE Complaint

Our posting on the related and previous suit is here.

Effort to Stop State Court Probate of Tonawanda Seneca Will Fails

Here are materials from Peters v. Noonan (W.D. N.Y.):

DCT Order Denying TRO

Peters Motion

Addendum to Report on Anti-Indian Movement in Skagit County, Wash.

Here:

Anti-Indian Movement in Skagit County – 5-1-12

The earlier version of this report is here.

Santa Clara Pueblo Votes to Change Membership Rules

Here.

New Report on Anti-Indianism in the Skagit County, WA GOP

Here’s a new report from Borderlands Research and Education, based in Silverdale, WA: Anti-Indianism in Skagit County – 4-15-2012 Having practiced in Skagit County, it’s good to see this sort of sentiment, which I found to be fairly prevalent, brought to light. I mentioned the State Republican Party’s resolution requesting termination of tribal sovereignty, which this report addresses in considerable detail, in one of my articles. See 13 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 737 n.239 (2011).

Dish Network Sues Hopi Revenue Agency to Avoid Business Registration/Tribal Court Jurisdiction

Here:

Dish Network Complaint

Paul Spruhan on Non-Indian Consent to Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction

Paul Spruhan has posted his draft paper, ‘Indians, in a Jurisdictional Sense’: The Continuing Viability of Consent as a Theory of Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction Over Non-Indians, on SSRN. We have accepted this paper for our new collection of essays to be edited by Fletcher, Fort, and Singel arising out of last fall’s MSU Indigenous Law and Policy Center annual conference, Beyond the Tribal Law and Order Act.

Here is Paul’s abstract:

The paper, written as a chapter for a proposed collaborative book on the Tribal Law and Order Act, discusses the theory of consent as a means of asserting tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. It discusses the legal history of naturalization and adoption of non-Indians as citizens of tribal nations as one form of consent. It then discusses the historical and contemporary influence of the Department of the Interior on tribal membership provisions adopted under the Indian Reorganization Act and other laws, and the shift from naturalization to rules restricting membership to citizens with tribal or Indian blood. It further discusses different modern theories of consent, adopted by the Navajo Nation and other tribes, based both on tribal traditional law and the Indian Civil Rights Act, and their relative chances of surviving federal scrutiny. It concludes with the proposal that non-Indians themselves consent to tribal criminal jurisdiction as a form of resistance to the ongoing reduction of tribal authority by the federal courts.

Federal Court Allows Pueblo of Santa Ana’s Challenge to N.M. Gaming Compact’s Jurisdiction Shifting Provisions to Proceed

Here are the materials in Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Nash (D. N.M.):

Memo Opinion

Party Defendants Motion to Dismiss

Judge Nash Motion to Dismiss

Response to Party Defendants

Response to Judge Nash

Party Defendants Reply

Judge Nash Reply

Here are the materials in the state supreme court decision that is the subject of this challenge.