Tribal Codes

Federal Court Declines to Dismiss Indictment against Ponca-Licensed Pharmacy

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Williams (W.D. Okla.):

DCT Order Denying Williams Motion to Dismiss

Here is the indictment:

Williams et al Indictment

Suquamish Chairman on their Same-Sex Marriage Ordinance

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

On JURIST, via Indianz:

Last month, the Suquamish Tribal Council amended its existing Marriage and Divorce Ordinance to permit marriages regardless of the couple’s gender. The amendment passed by a unanimous vote of the council and allows same-sex couples to receive the same treatment and benefits as opposite-sex couples. At least one person entering the marriage must be an enrolled member of the Suquamish Tribe. The amendment also provides for tribe members in civil unions entered in recognized jurisdictions to convert the union into a Suquamish Tribal marriage.

The issue of sexual orientation is not controversial in the Suquamish community. I have found no mention of sexual orientation as an issue in my research of the Tribe’s oral history or in non-Indian archival data. Some elders have stated that traditional views on same-sex interactions suggested that these individuals may have possessed unique spiritual associations. Research indicates that sexual orientation was probably not an area of great moral concern or discussion in Suquamish society before interaction with non-Indians. That same cultural value remains within the community today.

This tribal community of 1,050 members is sensitive to discrimination. Many members have experienced mistreatment based on race in their own lifetime, so the council understands the importance of ensuring that tribe members do not face discrimination in their own tribal laws, including due to sexual orientation. Tribe members view the amendment as an expression of the high value they place on inclusiveness and acceptance of diverse views within our community. This amendment embodies the Suquamish people’s ultimate exercise of its inherent right as a sovereign government to address the essential social question of whom Suquamish Tribe members can choose to marry.

NYTs “Room for Debate” — Tribal Rights vs. Racial Justice (Cherokee Freedmen Expulsion)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

The New York Times’ “Room for Debate” series has published a series of articles on the Cherokee Freedmen controversy.

Debaters

Federal Government and Cherokee Nation Responses to Cherokee Freedmen Motion to Enjoin Principal Chief Election

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here are the updated materials in Vann v. Salazar (D. D.C.):

USA Response to Vann Motion

Cherokee Nation Response to Vann Motion

The Vann motion is here.

Puget Sound Public Radio on Suquamish Same-Sex Marriage Law

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is a link to the audio and a transcript. An excerpt:

The Suquamish tribe has about a thousand members. One of them, a 28–year–old Seattle woman, pushed the tribe for years to open up marriage to same–sex couples. This week, the tribal council finally approved the change.

Now, the tribal court can issue a marriage license to two men or two women, as long as one of them is a member of the tribe.

Michelle Hansen is the tribe’s attorney. She says the new law gives gay couples the same marriage rights and benefits as others.

Hansen: “They don’t have to leave the reservation in order to get married. They don’t have to get a state, or a jurisdiction under the state type of license. They can just come here, and many tribal members would rather have those kinds of intratribal matters handled by their own government and by their own courts. So, this gives them that opportunity.”

Hansen says couples can also turn to the tribal court for divorces or some paternity issues.

The seven–member Suquamish Tribal Council unanimously approved the ordinance. The head of the council says he’s heard very little opposition, if any.

The Coquille tribe of Oregon appears to be the only one other tribe in the country with similar recognition for same–sex marriage.

Matthew Fletcher: “In general, I think it’s kind of off the radar.”

 

WaPo on Same-Sex Marriage Vote at Suquamish

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here, via Indianz.

An excerpt:

On Monday, the Suquamish Tribal Council ratified the people’s wishes and recognized gay marriage, making it only the second tribe in the country known to do so.

The new law allows the tribal court to issue a marriage license to two unmarried people, regardless of their sex, if they’re at least 18 years old and at least one of them is enrolled in the tribe.

It will be up to other courts to decide if unions granted under the Suquamish ordinance will be recognized elsewhere in Washington, said the tribe’s attorney, Michelle Hansen.

Gay marriage is still illegal in the state, but the Legislature this year approved a measure recognizing same-sex unions from other jurisdictions, which include other nations. State lawmakers also have approved a so-called “everything but marriage” law, granting same-sex couples many rights.

“I wanted to feel accepted by my tribe,” Purser said. “I was expecting a fight to be ugly. But I was so shocked. I guess I was expecting the worst out of people. I was expecting the worst out of my people.”

Incidentally, I’m on record as saying that the only other tribe that has approved same-sex marriage is the Coquille Tribe:

The Coquille Indian Tribe on the southern Oregon coast is the only other tribe that recognizes same-sex marriage, said Matthew L.M. Fletcher, a law professor at the Michigan State University Indigenous Law Center.

If there are others, please let us know!

Suquamish Tribe Approves Same-Sex Marriage

Ann Tweedy

The news article is here.

Shotclose v. Stoney First Nation: Election? We Don’t Need No Stinking Election

Peter Scott Vicaire

In Shotclose v. Stoney First Nation, members of Stoney Nakoda First Nation (which includes Bearspaw, Chiniki, and Wesley) were successful in convincing the Federal Court of Canada to invalidate an extension of the chief and councillor’s term in office past the two year band resolution limit. 

Continue reading →

Confusion in Replacing Joe McCoy as Chair at Sault Tribe

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the release from saulttribe.com:

There will not be an election to fill the seat left vacant by Sault Tribe Chairman Darwin “Joe” McCoy, who announced his immediate resignation as the elected leader Tribe on Tuesday, May 10.

“After further review of our election ordinance and upon advice from our legal team and Tribal Election Committee, it has been determined that an advisory election to fill the vacant chairperson seat is prohibited under our Tribal Law,” said Lana Causley, Vice Chairperson. “Chapter 10 of the Tribal Code is the Tribe’s Election Ordinance. The relevant provisions are sections 10.107 (Notice of Election) and 10.203 (Date of Election) that state: “The date of the (special) election shall not be earlier than ninety (90) days after the Election Announcement. No Special Advisory Election shall be held if the election date shall be later than six (6) months prior to the posting of the Election Announcement for the next general election.’”

Under this Election Ordinance, the Tribe cannot hold a Special Advisory Election because, assuming the Board posted the announcement for the Special Advisory Election May 24, 2011, the earliest the Special Advisory Election could be held under section 10.203 would be August 22, 2011 (August 22 is ninety days from May 24, 2011), which is less than six months from the posting of the Election Announcement for the next general election, which is July 27, 2011.  In order to hold a Special Advisory Election, the Election Announcement would have had to been posted 90 days prior to July 27, 2011, which has already passed.  According to section 10.107 “The Notice of Election shall be sent to all Adult Members (at least one notice per household) by means of letter, and shall also be publicized in the tribal newspaper, on the Tribe’s official website, and posted at all Tribal Offices on the last Friday in January in the year in which a general election occurs”, which is 2012 in this case.

The board did consider a resolution which would allow them to have a special advisory election by changing tribal law eliminating the 6 months prohibition, and the resolution failed on a vote of six to five. Therefore, under the Election Ordinance, the Board may not authorize a Special Advisory Election to assist it in appointing a replacement to fill the unexpired term of former Chairman McCoy. There will not be a Special non binding Advisory Election.

Causley said the entire board apologizes to tribal members and other audiences about any confusion caused by reports that an advisory election could be held to fill the position. It is the first time the Tribe has had a chairman resign near the end of his term.

“Our goal is to make sure we are following our Constitution and Tribal Laws, which clearly state that calling a special election in this instance would be prohibited,” said Causley. “On behalf of the entire Board, I apologize for any confusion caused surrounding this issue.” Causley also cautioned to be aware of any notices surrounding this and other Tribal issues to be certain they are coming from the Tribe and not an outside source.  Continue reading →

Eleventh Circuit Holds Hollywood Mobile Estates May Seek Injunctive Relief against Seminole Tribe…

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

…reversing the district court below. Here is the unpublished opinion (thanks to R.S.): 11th Circuit decision.

The trial court now has ordered a briefing schedule to determine whether Hollywood Mobile Estates is entitled to an order restoring its lease and ordering the Tribe to allow them to re-enter its lands. Here: Omnibus Order

Appellate briefs are here.