Tribal Codes

Ninth Circuit Rejects Challenge to 2001 Crow Constitution

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in Harris v. Parisien.

And an excerpt from a local news article (Billings Gazette):

A federal appeals court has rejected a Billings woman’s claim that her rights were violated when the Crow Tribe of Indians adopted a new constitution in 2001.

Frances Harris is an enrolled member of the Crow Tribe. She sued in U.S. District Court, seeking to invalidate the 2001 tribal constitution because it eliminated a voting district for tribal members who do not live on the Crow Indian Reservation.

Continue reading →

Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Sues National Labor Relations Board

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

VERY interesting case.The Little River Band created its own labor relations code. At least one union agreed to forego the National Labor Relations Act in favor of the tribal law, but the Teamsters — perhaps the definition of a dying union that won’t go away without bringing down everyone around it — filed a charge with the NLRB.

Even more interesting, the Interior Solicitor opined that the NLRA does not apply to this tribe, and requested that the NLRB back down. Of course the Board refused. And so we have this case in the Western District of Michigan.

Here are the relevant materials:

Continue reading →

US v. Watchman — Indian Country SORNA Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in United States v. Watchman, out of the District of Arizona. The case involves a SORNA/Adam Walsh Act violation by a Navajo Nation member. The defendant made an interesting argument that may recur in Indian Country, which is that the tribe had not yet implemented its sex offender registration statute.

watchman-motion-to-dismiss

us-response-to-motion-to-dismiss

watchman-reply-brief

us-v-watchman-dct-order

U.S. v. Perez — Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel when Tribe Appoints Lay Advocate Defender

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in U.S. v. Perez:

perez-r-and-r

dct-order-denying-perez-motion-to-suppress

The interesting excerpt from the district court’s denial of the motion is here:

After a careful review of the parties’ arguments, the facts, and relevant caselaw, the court adopts the magistrate judge’s recommendation and finds that Perez’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated. While Perez is correct that United States v. Red Bird, 287 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2002), would likely require this court to find a Sixth Amendment violation if he had been represented by an attorney on his tribal charges, the court agrees with Magistrate Judge Duffy and other judges in the District of South Dakota that Red Bird is distinguishable when it is lay counsel, not an attorney, who represented the defendant in tribal court. Red Bird, 287 F.3d at 716; see also Docket 54, page 25-27; United States v. Tools, CR 07-30109-01-KES, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49490 (D.S.D. June 27, 2008); United States v. Killeaney, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92763, 2007 WL 4459348, *5-*8 (D.S.D. Dec. 17, 2007) (stating that “[t]here is a clear distinction between licensed legal counsel and lay representation under the Sixth Amendment” and concluding that “the appointment of ‘counsel’ pursuant to the Rosebud Constitution does not in all circumstances cause Sixth Amendment protections to attach” when that “counsel” is lay counsel); United States v. Dupris, 2006 DSD 4, 422 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1068 (D.S.D. 2006); see also United States v. Whitefeather, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17237, 2006 WL 763204, *2 (D. Minn. Mar. 24, 2006). Because Perez’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not “attached” as discussed in McNeil, statements made during Agent Cresalia’s conversation with Perez on January 11, 2008, are admissible. Perez’s motion is denied.

Marceau v. Blackfeet Housing Authority Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

marceau-v-blackfeet-housing-authority-cert-petition

The SCT Project’s materials on this case are here.

Attorney’s Process and Investigation Services v. Sac and Fox Tribe — Case Reopened

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

This case arises out of alleged tortious nonmember conduct during the leadership dispute at Meskawki a few years back. In 2005, the Northern District of Iowa applied the tribal court exhaustion doctrine as justification for staying the case (nov-2005-dct-order). The tribal court’s processes have run (motion-to-reopen-case [includes tribal court decision]), and now the case has been reopened (dct-order-reopening-case).

This will be a very interesting application of the Montana test, if the court reaches the merits.

Dollar General v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians — Tribal Court Jurisdiction — Updated

Matthew L.M. Fletcher7 Comments

The Southern District of Mississippi granted a TRO against the tribal court in a case brought by tribal members against the owner of a Dollar General on tribal trust land. How this case doesn’t meet the Montana 1 test is beyond me.

Here are the materials:

dolgen-v-miss-band-tribal-court-dct-order

Miss Band Choctaw SCT Opinion

dollar-general-motion-for-tro

townsend-motion-for-tro

mississippi-band-response

dollar-general-reply-brief

Indian Law-Related Panels at AALS

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Thursday, January 8, 2009, 8:30-10:15

Section on Indian Nations and Indigenous Peoples
Columbia 3, North Tower/Lobby Level, San Diego Marriott Hotel & Marina

New Directions for International Law and Indigenous Peoples

(Program to be published in Idaho Law Review)

The United Nations’ adoption of the “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” in September 2007 marked an historic moment for the world’s 300 million indigenous peoples. The Declaration is the first time that the United Nations has formally recognized indigenous peoples’ rights to self-determination and control over their lands and natural resources. This year’s program will address the following issues related to the Declaration: How can the Declaration be used to improve the lives of indigenous peoples; What national laws and policies violate the Declaration, and what are the most effective remedial measures to address these violations?; and, How will the Declaration influence Congress, the administration and the courts?

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

Robert T. Coulter – Speaker
Angelique A. Eaglewoman – Speaker
G. W. Rice – Speaker
Wenona T. Singel – Moderator

Continue reading →

Anishinaabek Leader on the Canadian Indian Act

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the North Bay Nugget:

Message from Grand Council Chief John Beaucage–

Prior to contact, the Anishinaabe lived in peace and harmony with each other, living off the bounty of our Mother Earth. We acknowledged each other- our distinct bands and traditional territories. We respected our boundaries — not borders — out of respect for our neighbours. We harvested only what was needed, always mindful of sacred law and ensuring our food sources — the plants, animals, birds and fish — would remain abundant for seven generations into the future.

We governed ourselves according to that same sacred law. The Creator gave us the Clan System as a means to govern our day-to-day affairs, set priorities, and look after the needs of the community as a whole.

Continue reading →

Federal Court Rejects Tribal Court Jurisdiction under VAWA

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Western District of Washington rejected a claim that the Violence Against Women Act confers tribal court jurisdiction over personal protection orders issued against non-Indians. In this case, Martinez v. Martinez, the Suquamish Tribal Court had issued a PPO against a non-Indian man in favor of an Alaskan Native woman. They both lived on non-Indian-owned land on the Port Madison Reservation. The court also ruled that the tribal court exhaustion doctrine does not apply in this case.

Here are the materials:

defendant-martinez-motion-to-dismiss

suquamish-tribe-motion-to-dismiss

plaintiff-martinez-response-to-motions

defendant-martinez-reply-brief

suquamish-tribe-reply-brief

dct-order-rejecting-tribal-court-jurisdiction