tribal constitutions – Page 3

Maryland COA Affirms Decision Resolving Internal Political Dispute of State-Recognized Accohannock Indian Tribe

September 26, 2022Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in Hinmon v. Accohannock Indian Tribe:

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

September 19, 2022September 19, 2022Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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:

115 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss.pdf Download

126 Chegup Brief on Secretarial Approval.pdf Download

128 Tribe Brief on Secretarial Approval.pdf Download

129 Reply re Secretarial Approval.pdf Download

131 Tribe’s Second Brief on Secretarial Approval.pdf Download

132 DCT Order on Exhaustion.pdf Download

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

Muscogee SCT Decision in Muscogee (Creek) National Council v. Scott

July 21, 2022Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Doc.-19-Order-and-Opinion-07202022.pdf Download

Leech Lake Ojibwe Elected Official Sues Interior over Eligibility to Serve

June 21, 2022Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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

1 Complaint.pdf Download

1-1 LaRose Affidavit.pdf Download

1-3 Tribal Court Complaint.pdf Download

1-4 Tribal Court Briefs and Orders.pdf Download

1-5 Tribal COA Materials.pdf Download

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

March 18, 2022Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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.