Tribal Codes

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.

Broadman on Tribal Libel Laws

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From ICT:

People slander each other everywhere—without regard for territorial boundaries. But the legal treatment of such speech differs drastically depending on whether tribal or non-tribal laws apply. Tribal courts sometimes treat reputational torts like slander and libel, structurally, like their non-tribal counterparts, generally requiring proof of fault, falsity and harm. For instance, in many ways the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians defamation statute mirrors the standards of proof and structure of non-tribal defamation. (“Protection Against Defamation Act of 2006,” PDF) On the other hand, at least one tribal court has recognized a traditional cause of action for defamation under tribal law, complete with novel privileges and standards. As media interests increasingly collide with tribal governmental and commercial interests, tribal laws on expression will be tested. The results, as shown in a recent case from the Ho-Chunk Nation courts, will test the ongoing viability of defamation law in Indian country.

Libel and slander are curious species of lawsuits since they involve a person writing or speaking his mind. In non-tribal courts, plaintiffs who are public figures face a high burden of proof. But because U.S. Constitutional standards are not imported into tribal defamation law, speech laws take on very different shapes in Indian country. In 2008, an ordinance passed and quickly rescinded by the Tribal Business Counsel of the Chippewa Cree of Rocky Boy’s Reservation in Montana made it a crime to defame a tribal official. And last month, a Ho-Chunk Nation Trial Court applied a tribal military veteran’s privilege that, as it is recognized, existed nowhere besides Ho-Chunk.

In a careful treatment of tribal-specific defamation law, the Ho-Chunk Trial Court recently held inGardner v. Littlejohn that a “veteran privilege” existed, protecting certain defamation defendants from liability (see the opinion at the invaluable Turtle Talk—“Ho-Chunk Trial Court Decides Defamation Claim under Tribal Customs and Traditions”—edited by the Indigenous Law and Policy Center at Michigan State University College of Law). The court noted that although it “does not exist in any other jurisdiction,” the Ho-Chunk veteran privilege resembles that possessed by legislators, which shields certain legislative speech.

The suit stemmed from an Indian military veteran’s criticism of a tribal health department employee and an incorrect statement that the plaintiff had been terminated from employment. Typically, public officials suing their defamers must prove knowing or reckless falsehood. InGardner, had such a rule been applied and had defendants simply negligently defamed the plaintiff, no liability would exist.

Continue reading →

Tenth Circuit Issues Important Decision re: ICWA and Cherokee Nation Temporary Citizenship

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here are the materials in Nielson v. Ketchum:

CA10 opinion

Ketchum Appellant Brief

Nielson Appellee Brief

Cherokee Nation Appellee Brief

Ketchum Reply

The summary of the case from the opinion:

This case concerns the application of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-1963, which, among other things, imposes a period of ten days before a parent can consent to the termination of her parenting rights over an “Indian child.”  The day after giving birth to C.D.K., Petitioner-Appellee Britney Jane Little Dove Nielson appeared in state court in Utah to relinquish her parenting rights and consent to the adoption of her son by Respondents-Appellants Sunny and Joshua Ketchum.  The court determined that although Nielson’s mother was a registered member of the Cherokee Nation, Nielson was not, and consequently the court approved the adoption without applying the procedural safeguards of the ICWA.

Later, Nielson filed suit in federal district court, claiming that C.D.K. was an Indian child at the time of the adoption and hence the ICWA’s ten-day waiting period should have applied.  Even though she was not herself a member of the Cherokee Nation, Nielson pointed to a law passed by the Cherokee Nation establishing automatic temporary Cherokee citizenship for any newborn who is the direct descendant of a Cherokee listed on the Dawes Commission Rolls.  The district court agreed that this act established tribal citizenship for C.D.K., and it invalidated Nielson’s relinquishment of parental rights, leaving the matter of custody of C.D.K. for the Utah state courts.  We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reverse on the grounds that C.D.K. was not a member of the Cherokee Nation for ICWA purposes at the time of the adoption.