LTBB Tribal Council Votes Down Same-Sex Marriage Amendment, but Debate Continues

An excerpt from the Petoskey News:

The motion to approve the amendment failed on a 4-5 vote, but a second vote — passing 5-4 — put the entire tribal marriage statute that defines marriage as between a man and a woman up for legislative review.

The amendment would have made the tribe the first in Michigan to allow same-sex couples to wed. Only two tribes in the nation have adopted a similar marriage definition.

The decision would also have skirted a 2004 ballot proposal by Michigan voters that banned gay marriage for the entire state population, because the federal government recognizes tribes’ rights to govern themselves as a domestic nation.

Despite the failed vote, the issue is unlikely to be dropped.

Previous post on the topic is here. Miigwetch to C.D.

Update in Cherokee Nation v. Nash (Cherokee Freedmen Case)

Here are new materials filed by the Freedmen and the feds against the Cherokee Nation:

Federal Answer to Amended Complaint

Federal Counterclaim

118-1 Attachment

Freedmen Amended Answer — Counterclaims — Cross Claims

Freedmen Exhibits

News coverage here.

More Materials in Comanche Election Dispute

Here:

1 – Petition 05.24.12

2 – Request for Expedited Hearing 05.29.12

3 – Notice of Supplement to Petition 06.06.12

4 – Interim Order 06.07.12

10 – Petitioners Response to Motion to Dismiss 06.14.12

11 – Motion for Show Cause Hearing to Determine Coffey and Wa

12 – Notice of Hearing for June 22, 2012 at 10 am 06.15.12

16 – Judgment of Dismissal 06.26.12

Additional Tribal Court Materials in the Comanche Election Dispute

Here:

transcript of proceedings 6-22-12

Comanche Motion to Dismiss

Comanche Mtn to Vacate Orders

Exhibits to the Comanche Nation’s Motion to Dismiss filed

Prior materials here.

Tribal Court Materials in Comanche Election and Leadership Dispute

Here:

Judge Lujan’s verbal decision: Excerpt of Transcript of Proceedings 6-22-12

News coverage: News Article

Motion to Dismiss: Reply re Motion to Dismiss in CFR Court Litigation

Materials in the parallel bank suit are here and here.

Jill Doerfler on White Earth Constitutional Reform

Here.

Comanche Motion to Dismiss International Bank Suit

Here:

Comanche Nation Mot to Dismiss 6.20.12

The complaint is here.

Fletcher on NAICJA/Getches’ “Indian Courts and the Future”

I posted my University of Colorado Law Review symposium paper, “Indian Courts and Fundamental Fairness: Indian Courts and the Future Revisited.” Here is the abstract:

This paper comes out of the University of Colorado Law Review’s symposium issue honoring the late Dean David H. Getches. It begins with Dean Getches’ framework for analyzing Indian courts. I revisit Indian Courts and the Future, the 1978 report drafted by Dean Getches, and the historic context of the report. I compare the 1978 findings to the current state of Indian courts in America. The paper focuses on the ability of Indian courts to successfully guarantee fundamental fairness in the form of due process and the equal protection of the law for individuals under tribal government authority is uniquely tied to the legal infrastructure available to the courts. Congress tried to provide the basic framework in the Indian Civil Rights Act, and many of the most successful tribal justice systems have borrowed from ICRA or developed their own indigenous structure to guarantee due process and equal protection. I argue that ICRA is declining in importance as Indian tribes domesticate federal constitutional guarantees by adopting their own structures to guarantee fundamental fairness.

The Colorado Law Library recently archived Indian Courts and the Future and its two appendices  (here and here). Check them out. The Indian law portion of the symposium is here.

News article on Skagit GOP’s anti-Indian platform

The article, from the Spokesman Review, is here.

Previous posts are here, here, here, and here.

New Student Scholarship on Tribal Waivers of Immunity by Unauthorized Tribal Officials

Adam Keith, a Penn Law student, has published “Who Should Pay for the Errors of the Tribal Agent?: Why Courts Should Enforce Contractual Waivers of Tribal Immunity When an Agent Exceeds Her Authority under Tribal Law.” The article appears in the Penn Journal of Business Law. The article criticizes a recent Sixth Circuit decision on the immunity of Section 17 corporations.

Here is a snippet:

When tribal commercial organizations engage in commercial dealings, their non-tribal counterparties almost universally insist that a waiver of tribal immunity be included within any contractual agreement so as to retain their access to state and federal courts should they decide to litigate any commercial disputes against the tribal entity. In a recent case, the Sixth Circuit weakened the reliability of these waivers by ruling that the court will not enforce such a waiver when a tribal agent assents to one while possessing only apparent authority in the eyes of the tribal counterparty but not actual authority under tribal law. This comment will argue that there are three reasons that courts should enforce such waivers: because doing so is consistent with the principles associated with waivers of tribal immunity; because it will not have deleterious effects on tribal sovereignty; and because it will improve the efficiency of tribal commercial dealings with non-tribal entities.