tribal constitutions

Cherokee District Court Holds 2007 Tribal Constitutional Amendment Disenrolling Freedmen VOID

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the order:

Nash v Cherokee Nation Registrar

The Cherokee Nation’s entry into the hereinbefore mentioned Treaty of 1866 was an agreement which, to this date, has not been modified or abrogated by any action heretofore taken either through Constitutional change or Amendment thereto and the Nation is still bound by such provisions. The Cherokee Constitutional Amendment of March 3, 2007, by virtue of the provisions of the Treaty of 1866 and subsequent actions taken in furtherance thereof, are hereby determined to be void as a matter of law.

Three Muscogee Supreme Court Justices Issue Opinion that Declares Opinion by Other Three Justices to be Void Ab Initio

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Recall that in Muscogee (Creek) Nation Council v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation Election Board that three Justices purported to dismiss a claim relating to tribal constitutional amendments posted here on Saturday. Now the three other sitting Justices have declared that opinion void ab initio (opinion here: Response to Opinion and Order).

 

Muscogee Nation Council Challenge to Tribal Constitutional Amendment Thrown Out (without briefing)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

A year ago, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Council, along with a tribal member co-plaintiff, sued the Muscogee Election Board to challenge the adoption of several amendments to the tribal constitution, suing in the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. That Court held, over a dissent, that it was improper to bring suit under the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, and remanded the case to the district court. The district court judge recused, leaving a vacancy that was never filled by the Muscogee executive branch. The case languished, and now the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Supreme Court (3-2, with one Justice not participating) has dismissed the claims for lack of standing of the plaintiffs, apparently without notice to the parties or the benefit of briefing of either party on the questions of whether it could reassert jurisdiction or on the standing of the parties.

Here are the materials:

Muscogee Council & Robert Trepp Complaint // CV 09-211 Summons & Complaint signed

Supreme Court Order Remanding to DCT

District Court Judge Recusement

Supreme Court Order Dismissing Suit // Supreme Court Order Dismissing Suit complete opinion

Briefs in Cherokee Nation Redistricting Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The opinion in Cowan-Watts v. Smith is here.

Here are the available briefs:

Cowan-Watts Opening Brief

Principal Chief Reply

Council Reply

Stanford Law Panel on Tribal Constitutions — This Saturday

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

If you’re in Palo Alto, check it out. From the Shaking the Foundations conference website (thanks to Tom Pack):

Date, Time and Location

October 16, 2:15-3:45 PM (Room 280B)

Panel Description

Several major U.S. Tribes are considering the adoption of new tribal constitutions while many more are unhappy with their 1930s-era Indian Reorganization Act tribal constitutions. These largely cookie-cutter constitutions were often coercively adopted and have resulted in varying degrees of success and failure. This panel will explore how tribes can take advantage of the process of developing tribal constitutions to advance tribal sovereignty, to enhance self-determination, and to improve cultural connections between tribal governments and tribal citizens. Best practices in constitution- making, pitfalls to be avoided, and the limits of the tribal constitution as a tool will also be discussed.

Speakers

  • Carole Goldberg (Panel Moderator), Jonathan D. Varat Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
  • Duane Champagne, Professor of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles
  • Angela Riley, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law