This disputes arises out of an alleged breach of a gaming machine lease agreement, and an alleged waiver of tribal immunity needed to enforce the agreement. Currently, the Tribe’s motion to remand the case back to state court is pending.
Here are the materials so far in Apache Tribe of Oklahoma v. TGS Anadarko (W.D. Okla.):
And here are the related state court materials:
We previously posted the study here.
Here is the updated study:
Justice in Indian Country- A Case Study of the Tulalip Tribes
Important scholarship. [Will be replaced soon.]
Updated version:
Justice in Indian Country- A Case Study of the Tulalip Tribes
Here is the opinion in In re Estate of Flaws.
An excerpt:
Based upon the plain language of SDCL 29A-2-114 and the foregoing authorities, we hold that the trial court did not err in determining that the methods and time limits in the statute for establishing paternity are exclusive. A question remains, however, as to whether Yvette failed to comply with any of them. The trial court found that Yvette had petitioned the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Hearings and Appeals to reopen Donald’s probate to include her as an heir. For that reason, the court initially took this matter under advisement to see if Yvette’s petition would be granted. The court subsequently determined it could take more than a year to have Yvette’s petition heard. For that reason, the court issued its decision and this appeal followed. The day after the filing of Yvette’s appellant’s brief, however, the Bureau of Indian Affairs tribunal issued an order directing any parties opposed to naming Yvette as an heir to Donald’s estate to show cause for their objections within thirty days. Thus, Yvette’s efforts to reopen Donald’s probate may still prove successful, permitting her to comply with SDCL 29A-2-114(c) to establish Donald’s paternity. In the interests of justice, therefore, we remand this matter to the trial court to wait for a reasonable time for the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ decision and to proceed accordingly.
Here is the opinion.
An excerpt:
Nancy Sue Bear claims the Brown County District Court did not have jurisdiction to dissolve the family partnership and then partition and order the sale of real estate that she and her family, all enrolled members of the Kickapoo Nation Tribe, had farmed on the Kickapoo Reservation. Indian tribes are domestic dependent nations that exercise inherent sovereign authority over their members and territories. Because all of the parties to their action are enrolled members of the Kickapoo Nation Tribe and all of the land is located within the Kickapoo Reservation, we hold that the tribal court is the proper forum for resolving this dispute. It is a matter of sovereignty. We reverse the judgments of the district court and remand the matter with directions to dismiss the case.
Here.
The fourth edition of April Schwartz and Mary Jo Brooks Hunter’s critically important United States Tribal Court Directory is now available.
Here.
Here.
The Federal Court of Appeal recently revisited a 2009 decision from the Federal Court involving the removal of and 10-year prohibition of re-election for the former Chief of Peepeekisis First Nation. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision that there was insufficient evidence to establish that either of the two Councils (which removed the Chief and implemented the prohibition) satisfied the criteria of the Election Act, or custom. Here’s the decision – Bellegarde v. Poitras.
Here is the news coverage. An excerpt:
A deeply divided Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Council has voted to change the requirements to become a member of the Tribe.
In a 6 to 5 vote, the council voted to tighten the source of the Indian blood quantum requirement for members.
The Tribe’s constitution, adopted in 1986, requires that members be descended from a person on one of three lists compiled in the 19th century, or from a Tribal base role compiled in 1982, plus be at least one-quarter “Indian blood.”
The constitution does not, however, define what is meant by Indian blood.
Early version of the Tribe’s enrollment ordinance also left it largely undefined, and it was interpreted to mean descent from most North American indigenous people. The council then tightened that to define it as descent from a member of any federally recognized Tribe.
The newest version, adopted at a special session of the Tribal Council Oct. 26, specifies that only “Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan” blood counts toward the one-quarter Indian blood.
“Tribal Council finds that the current definition of ‘Indian blood’ provided in (the enrollment ordinance) is overly broad and inconsistent with the constitution,” said the resolution adopting the revised law. “The Tribal Council finds that blood inherited from the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan is the only blood directly relevant to membership under the constitution of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe.”
Under the old law, for example, a child born to a Saginaw Chippewa Tribal member with one-fourth Indian blood and a full-blooded member of the federally recognized Navajo Nation would qualify for membership. By most reckonings, that child would have five-eighths Indian blood quantum.
Under the new law, that child would not qualify as a Saginaw Chippewa.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.