Tribal Codes

Navajo Reapportionment Map

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the Navajo Times via Pechanga:

The reapportionment map representing the plan approved Friday. PDFDownload a large-format PDF version of the map. (2.1 MB, requires Adobe Reader.)

* * *

The Navajo Board of Election Supervisors approved on Friday a reapportionment plan dividing the Navajo Nation into 24 voting districts for a new, reduced tribal council election.

The board also voted to extend the filing deadline for council delegate candidates by one business day, to 5 p.m. Monday, June 14. This will give candidates at least a little time to acquaint themselves with the new apportionment plan, the board said.

“This is good,” said President Joe Shirley Jr., who presented the plan approved by the board. “This is something we should have done a long time ago. We are moving along and progressing.”
The board unanimously approved both measures.

Continue reading →

New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds State Hot Pursuit Criminal Search in Indian Country

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

But recognizes that the tribal government could enact legislation to prohibit such hot pursuits.

Here is the opinion in State v. Harrison: New Mexico Supreme Court Opinion.

Article on Applying International Law to Freedmen Disenrollment Cases

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Greg Rubio published “Reclaiming Indian Civil Rights: The Application of International Human Rights Law to Tribal Disenrollment Actions” in the Oregon Review of International Law.

An excerpt:

A more detailed description of this Article’s warp and woof is in order. Part I highlights the substance and nature of the injury that forms the basis for potential international human rights claims. It describes the history and background of the Cherokee Freedmen, details the events of their disenrollment by the Cherokee tribe, and briefly considers the stakes that attend Indian membership determinations in the present political and economic context. Part II examines the body of domestic law under which an Indian plaintiff might normally seek redress: federal Indian law. This critical section concludes that through the current ascendancy of tribal sovereignty and self-determination in federal and congressional policy and the strict application of the common law doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity in federal courts, federal Indian law as presently constituted leaves the Cherokee Freedmen without any domestic remedy for the allegedly racially discriminatory action. Part III then turns to a discussion of two potentially applicable provisions of international human rights law. After describing the present status of indigenous peoples under international human rights law, Part III considers the two provisions, detailing how the disenrollment action implicates each. This Part finally outlines the relevant characteristics necessary to hold the United States accountable for the tribal disenrollment action under its international human rights obligations. After describing how the United States might find itself answering in an international forum for the allegedly discriminatory acts of the Cherokee, Part IV ponders the potential ramifications of this reality for Indian tribes and for the federal government. This Part suggests that these conclusions may imply a potential shift in the present status of federal Indian policy and portend a new and sober dimension in the ongoing dialogue over that most familiar ground in federal Indian law: the reach of tribal sovereignty.

Fletcher on “Race and American Indian Tribal Nationhood” — UPDATED

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

“Race and American Indian Tribal Nationhood” is available for download here. [The paper is there now, sorry.]

Here is the abstract:

Modern American Indian nations face a racial paradox. On one hand, the citizenry of Indian nations is almost exclusively based in race, ethnicity, and ancestry. Indian nations would not be “Indian” without this basis. But American constitutional principles dictate that laws based on racial, ethnic, or ancestral classifications are highly disfavored. For Indian nations, this means that Indian governments have virtually no authority to regulate the activities of the non-Indian citizens that live amongst Indian communities. This paper offers a long-term solution to this conundrum, a solution that requires Indian nations and American courts and policymakers to modernize understandings about American Indian tribal nationhood. American Indian law and policy forced Indian nations into a legal status akin to “domestic racial nations.” By tweaking Indian citizenship requirements, and recognizing the national character of modern Indian nations, modern Indian nations should more properly be understood as simply “domestic nations,” much like Monaco and The Vatican.

Constructive feedback welcome.

Navajo Supreme Court Decides Cases on the Removal of the President and the Reduction of the Tribal Council

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are these opinions:

NNSC OPVP v TNN Council OPINION

NNSC Initiative Committee to Reduce Council

Navajo Nation Council Attacks on Navajo Judiciary?

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are three competing press releases from various branches of Navajo government (two of three, as Paul notes below):

Navajo Judiciary Committee on Court Reform

Navajo Nation Council Unhappy with TRO

Navajo President Opposes Election of Navajo Judges

Navajo Office of Legislative Counsel Opinion on Pres. Shirley’s Effort to Run for a Third Term

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here it is: CLC0110

And here is news coverage of President Shirley’s announcement he’s running for a third term by relying on Dine Fundamental Law.

Michigan Indian Law Day Agenda (UPDATED) — April 2

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

University of Michigan NALSA

2010 Indian Law Day Schedule

Looking Inward: Tribal Governance

Blessing

1:00 – 1:10

Joseph Brave-Heart

Keynote Speaker

1:10 -1:40

Frank Ettawageshik

Former Tribal Chairman, Little Traverse Bay

Bands of Odawa Indians

Tribal Constitutions

1:45 – 2:25

Allie Maldonado, Assistant General Counsel,

Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians

Mike Phelan, Office of the General Counsel

Pokagon Band Potawatomi Indians

Tribal Courts

2:30 – 3:10

Prof. Matthew Fletcher, Michigan State University College of Law

Amy Kullenberg, Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians

Break/Refreshments

3:10 – 3:25

Tribal Economic Diversification

3:25 – 4:05

Zeke Fletcher, Associate, Rosette & Associates

Prof. Matthew Fletcher, Michigan State University College of Law

Jeffredo v. Macarro Cert Petition re: Pechanga Disenrollments

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here: Jeffredo Cert Petition

Incidentally, a few days after the petitioners filed, the Ninth Circuit panel adopted an amended opinion (here).

Lower court materials are here.

Questions presented:

1. Is the Writ of Habeas Corpus under the Indian Civil Rights Act limited solely to tribal criminal proceedings instead of also including tribal civil proceedings which result in the disenrollment of life-long tribal citizens?

2. Does the combination of “disenrollment,” which is the stripping away of Appellants’ life-long tribal citizenship and the current and potential restrictions placed on Appellants, constitute a severe restraint on their liberty so as to satisfy the “detention” requirement of Section 1303 of the Indian Civil Rights Act?

3. Does the disenrollment of life-long tribal members, by itself, constitute a severe restraint of liberty so as to satisfy the “detention” requirement of the Indian Civil Rights Act?

4. Did the Appellants exhaust their tribal remedies by going through every Pechanga Tribal appeal proceeding available to contest their disenrollment?

I don’t see how this is certworthy. There’s no split in authority alleged by the petitioners (they didn’t even try to assert a split with the Second Circuit which decided a somewhat similar case (Poodry) years ago). I imagine the Supreme Court one day will reconsider the National Farmers Union tribal court exhaustion doctrine but this doesn’t seem to be a very good vehicle for that because it’s not a tribal court jurisdiction case at the heart of the doctrine. Plus, it’s an internal tribal matter with no national importance whatsoever (other than the side-show of Indian gaming wealth).

Finally, despite the dissent from District Court Judge Wilkens, I don’t think the Roberts Court is inclined to expand habeas rights in any way, let alone to benefit Indian people in this way. As Justice Holmes told Justice Brandeis, the Supreme Court is not there to do justice.

U-M Law Day 2010 Poster (April 2, 2010)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

U-M Law School, April 2, 2010, at 1-5 PM.

Confirmed speakers include Frank Ettawageshik, Matthew Fletcher, Allie Maldonado, Mike Phelan, and Zeke Fletcher.