Update in Nooksack Disenrollment Matter — Second Amended Complaint Dismissed

Here are additional materials in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):

Kelly Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Nooksack Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Kelly Defendants’ Reply on Motion to Dismiss

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint 8-6-2013

An excerpt:

As Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs Kevin Washburn wrote recently, “in the exercise of sovereignty and self-governance, tribes have the right, like other governments, to make good decisions, bad decisions, and decisions with which others may not agree.” Aguayo, page 1. The Tribal Council members named in this Complaint hold an obligation to act in the best interests of the Nooksack Indian Tribe. Membership and enrollment decisions impact individual lives in the deepest possible ways and those decisions cannot be taken lightly. This Court recognizes the serious implications of this case and its decision on this motion and all the others that have preceded it. It is the solemn obligation of this Court to follow the law of the Nooksack Indian Tribe and it is the obligation of the Tribal Council to do the same.

Materials in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Salazar (Tribal Dispute)

Here:

CVMT Motion to Dismiss

Federal Cross-Motion for Summary J

Plaintiffs Opposition

2013 07 05 CONFORMED Motion to Expedite

Opposition to Motion to Expedite

2013 07 26 Reply in Support of Motion to Expedite

Previous posts on this dispute here and here.

Commentaries by Fletcher and Richotte on Proposed White Earth Constitution

Available in Anishinaabeg Today, the White Earth Band tribal newspaper. Check out page 2 for the commentaries.

Article on Tribal Constitutions and Constitutional Reform

This article focuses heavily on the current constitutional reform movement going on at the White Earth Nation in Minnesota, but also makes some interesting points about tribal constitutions in general.

A few quotes from the article:

Most Americans don’t realize that tribes have their own constitutions, which set down rules for everything from tribal government to citizenship. But many were built on models written by the U.S. Department of the Interior nearly 80 years ago.

Times have changed, tribal leaders say. Today many Indian nations are expanding their economies, experimenting with gaming and hoping to include their own cultural touchstones and collective priorities in the document that governs them.

________________________________________________________

“We are governed by the Indian Reorganization Act, written by the federal government in 1934,” said Vizenor, chairwoman at White Earth, the state’s largest tribe. “[Our constitution] doesn’t have an independent judicial system. It doesn’t have separation powers. And there are about 27 references about asking permission from the Secretary of Interior in order to do something.”

A new constitution, Vizenor said, could be the key to attracting new businesses, running clean elections, creating an impartial judiciary — and creating a place where more people want to live, work and invest.

________________________________________________________

About 250 of the 333 tribal constitutions in the United States were based completely or partly on the Indian Reorganization Act, according to David Wilkins, professor of American Indian studies at the University of Minnesota. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t apply to Indian Country because tribes are sovereign nations that existed before the constitution was drafted, he said.

Tribal constitutions determine how tribes govern themselves internally and how they relate to other government entities such as counties and states. Having stronger checks and balances in place can help prevent the favoritism and corruption that has prevented some tribes from prospering, supporters say.

Research has shown that tribes with the most capable governments are more successful economically than others, said Steve Cornell, co-director of the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development and a professor at the University of Arizona.

______________________________________________________________

White Earth got started on the process in 1997, after several tribal leaders — including former chair Darrel (Chip) Wadena — were convicted of election fraud and bid-rigging related to the tribe’s casino. When Vizenor was elected tribal chair in 2004, she made constitution reform a priority.

White Earth’s proposed constitution contains the first term limits for tribal leaders and an independent court system. Judges must be graduates of a law school accredited by the American Bar Association, but must also have “knowledge of Anishinaabe [Ojibwe] culture, traditions and history.”

It creates a legislative council, but one advised by a “council of elders.” It contains safeguards guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, such as freedom of religion, speech and press. But it also protects “freedom of artistic irony,” a form of satire used in literature that “may not please some citizens.”

Vizenor hopes good governance will attract and keep younger tribal members, who often leave reservations because, in the absence of clear rules, jobs can hinge on political connections.

In the past, Minnesota tribes interested in reforming their governments often lacked the expertise and finances, said Jaime Pinkham, a vice president at the Bush Foundation. That’s why the foundation stepped in.

Even with funding, however, challenges remain. How do you stir up excitement over a constitution in a place grappling with poverty? How do you get buy-in from folks who stand to lose political privilege? How do you deal with the contentious tribal citizenship issue?

“Change is frightening to people,” said Anton Treuer, executive director of the American Indian Resource Center at Bemidji State University. “But times are changing, and we need to change with them.”

Full article here.

Additional Tribal Court Materials in Nooksack Tribal Disenrollment Case — Second Emergency Motion for TRO

Here are the new materials in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Ct.):

Second Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Second Emer Motion for TRO

Reply in Support of Second Emergency Motion for TRO

Tribal Court Order Denying Second TRO Motion re Election

Tribal Court Order Denying Second TRO Re General Special Meetings

Prior posts here, here, here, and here.

Assistant Secretary’s Decision in Pala Band Disenrollment Dispute

Here:

AS-IA Pala Decision.6.12.2013

First Same Sex Couple Married at LTBB Invited to White House

Tim LaCroix and his longtime partner, Gene Barfield, will be guests of President Barack Obama on Thursday at a reception honoring LGBT Pride Month, MLive.com reportedtoday. LGBT stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender.

The men were married in March by the LittleTraverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, of which LaCroix is a member. Same-sex marriage is prohibited in Michigan, but federally recognized Native American tribes are self-governing and aren’t bound by state law.

Story here.

Previous coverage here.

Tribal Court Denies Injunction in Nooksack Disenrollee Challenge

Here are the materials available in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):

Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Defendants Response Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs Emergency Motion for T

Reply in Support of Plaintiffs Emergency Motion for TRO

Eighth Circuit Rejects Sandy Lake Chippewa Secretarial Election Appeal — UPDATED with briefs

Here is the opinion.

The court’s syllabus:

Civil case – Indian law. Because the district court had adjudicated the issue of subject matter jurisdiction in the Sandy Lake Band’s previous suit, and Sandy Lake did not appeal from that decision or exhaust its administrative remedies, the court is bound by the district court’s original determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction; the district court’s dismissal order is affirmed, but modified to be without prejudice.

Briefs:

Sandy Lake Opening Brief

Federal Answering Brief

Sandy Lake Reply

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Dismisses ICRA Habeas Claim against Seneca Nation by Tribal Member Facing Quasi-Banishment

Sorry about the “quasi-banishment.” It’s a made up word, I know. 🙂

Mr. Mitchell contended that the Council’s action imposing certain restrictions on him (following a federal indictment charging him with fraudulent acts in connection with his position with a Nation gaming enterprise) subjected him to custody for purposes of ICRA, and sought habeas corpus relief. The Court held that Mr. Mitchell is not subject to custody or detention, and did not reach the question of exhausting tribal court remedies.

Here are the materials in Mitchell v. Seneca Nation of Indians (W.D. N.Y.):

15-1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(B)(1)

18 Mitchell Opposition Motion Dismiss 1

9 – SNI Reply – Motion to Dismiss

23 – Order Granting Motion to Dismiss