Utah Federal Court Orders Exhaustion of Tribal Remedies in Ute Banishment Case

Here are the new materials in Chegup v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Unitah and Ouray Indian Reservation (D. Utah), formerly Chegup v. Ute Indian Tribal Court of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation:

Tenth Circuit materials here. Earlier materials in the district court here.

Leech Lake Ojibwe Elected Official Sues Interior over Eligibility to Serve

Here are the materials in LaRose v. Haaland (D. Minn.):

Semi-Split Tenth Circuit Decides Chegup v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation [banishment]

Here is the opinion.

Briefs here.

An excerpt:

We begin by discussing the tribal exhaustion doctrine involved in this case. “[W]hen a federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim arising in Indian country over which a tribal forum has colorable jurisdiction, principles of comity and the federal policy of promoting tribal self-government generally require that the plaintiff fully exhaust tribal remedies before proceeding in federal court.” Restatement of the Law of Am. Indians § 59 cmt. a (Am. Law Inst., Proposed Final Draft 2021).

slip op. at 14.

Maybe a little more Restatement. . . .

Post–Santa Clara Pueblo, federal review has been limited to habeas, leaving tribal courts to adjudicate any other civil rights claims. See Restatement of the Law of Am. Indians § 16 cmt. a (“With the exception of actions for habeas corpus relief [under § 1303, ICRA’s civil rights] guarantees are enforceable exclusively in tribal courts and other tribal fora.”).

slip op. at 21.
Ute Indians camped at Belle Fourche, South Dakota, who are dissatisfied with their treatment: Capt. Johnson, with the Sixth Cavalry from Ft. Meade, S.D., addressing Indians, who they were sent to arrest

And more. . . .

Tribal exhaustion doctrine exists to preserve tribal sovereignty and prevent the federal courts from running roughshod over tribal legal systems. See Norton, 862 F.3d at 1243; Restatement of the Law of Am. Indians § 28 cmt. a (“[A]djudication of matters impairing reservation affairs by any nontribal court . . . infringes upon tribal law-making authority, because tribal courts are best qualified to interpret and apply tribal law.”).

Slip op. at 34.

Eighth Circuit Rejects MHA Nation Citizens’ Voting Rights Suit

Here is the opinion in Cross v. Fox.

Briefs:

Lower court materials here.

Fort Berthold Agency

Cherokee Nation SCT Strikes “By Blood” from Cherokee Constitution

Here is the order in In Re: Effect of Cherokee Nation v. Nash and Vann v. Zinke:

SC-17-07 37-Final Order 2-22-21

Selected Briefs:

2-8-21 Motion for Final Disposition

2-18-21 Tribe Brief

2-18-21 Councilors Brief

Muscogee (Creek) Nation SCT Decides Graham v. MCN Citizenship Committee [Creek Freedmen]

Here are the materials in Graham v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation Citizenship Committee (also here):

Doc.-4-Appellants-Brief-02242020

Doc.-14-Appellees-Response-Brief-06122020

Doc.-18-Appellants-Reply-Brief-07102020

Doc.-19-Order-and-Opinion-09172020