Grand River Band Chairman Ron Yob Speaking at the Michigan Tribal-State-Federal Judicial Forum

Muscogee (Creek) Nation SCT Denies Enforcement and Contempt Motions Citing Separation of Powers and Closes Freedmen Citizenship Case

Here is the order in Citizenship Board of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Grayson and Kennedy:

Prior post here.

Grant Christensen on Enforceability of Tribal Court Judgments

Grand Christensen has posted “Tribal Court Judgments” on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

Does a state court have to enforce a judgment issued by a tribal court? In 1991 the Arizona Supreme Court surveyed the current treatment of tribal court judgments and concluded that a majority of courts “extend[ ] the application of the full faith and credit clause” to decisions rendered by tribal courts. Just fifteen years later the Southern District of Florida castigated the Miccosukee Tribe for making the same representation; reasoning that “the clear majority of states addressing the issue have concluded that Indian tribes” are outside of the Full Faith and Credit Statute.

This Article corrects the judicial record. First, it actually surveys the split among state laws and concludes that most states that have considered the issue treat tribal court judgments as enforceable beyond the traditional comity extended to judgments from foreign courts, although not all of these states describe this recognition as full faith and credit. Second, it makes a normative argument, suggesting that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in a relatively obscure bankruptcy case, Lac du Flambeau v. Coughlin, actually resolves the conflict and mandates that state courts extend full faith and credit to tribal court judgments. Finally, the Article considers the limited enumerated powers of Congress and the federal courts, to suggest that while states must give full faith and credit to tribal court judgments, tribes are free to decide for themselves whether to reciprocally recognize state court judgments.

The implications are profound. The judicial record is replete with hundreds of cases, across dozens of states, searching for guidance on the scope of the Full Faith and Credit Statute when applied to Indian tribes. There is a circuit split. There are federal courts refusing to comply with nineteenth century Supreme Court precedent that has never been overturned. The congressional response has been piecemeal, requiring full faith and credit in specific circumstances, without ever articulating a standard for the recognition of other tribal court judgments. This Article unifies history and practice, statute and precedent, to articulate a single consolidated theory of the recognition of tribal court judgments.

California Federal Court Finds Federal Court Jurisdiction in Effort to Enforce Tribal Court Judgment

Here are the materials in McClamary v. D&L Real Estate Enterprises LLC (C.D. Cal.):

Tenth Circuit Affirms Drug Conviction Arising from Tribal Court Issued Search Warrant

Here is the opinion in United States v. Holt.

Briefs:

Tenth Circuit Moots ICRA Habeas Petition Styled as a Removal from Tribal Court to Federal Court, with a Warning About Frivolous Filings

Here is the unpublished opinion in Gardner v. Ute Tribal Court.

Briefs:

Update in Creek Freedmen Suit Seeking Citizenship — Contempt Motions

Here are post-decision materials in Citizenship Board of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Grayson and Kennedy:

Prior posts here and here.

Nonmember Gaming Company Sues Iowa Tribe over Tribal Court Jurisdiction [international online gaming]

Here are the materials so far in Monster Technology Group LLC v. Eller (W.D. Okla.):

Update in ICRA Habeas Claim at Cayuga

Here are updated materials in Parker v. Halftown (N.D.N.Y.):

Prior post here.

New Student Scholarship on Tribal Courts’ Role in the Federalist Judicial System

Sharon Nunn has published “Correcting Nevada v. Hicks: Recognizing Tribal Courts as Courts of General Subject-Matter Jurisdiction” in the Yale Law Journal.

Here is the abstract:

This Note challenges the Supreme Court’s conclusion in Nevada v. Hicks that tribal courts are not courts of general subject-matter jurisdiction. Tribal courts satisfy the definition of general subject-matter jurisdiction courts: they are primary courts created by nonfederal sovereigns to hear a broad range of cases under their laws. Unlike previous scholarship, this analysis does not premise jurisdiction on near-perfect parity between tribal and state sovereignty, but focuses instead on tribal courts’ function in our federalist system. Recognizing tribal courts as general-jurisdiction courts would affirm tribal sovereignty and enable tribes to hear federal claims critical to self-governance.

Suzan Shown Harjo, Vine Deloria, Sam Deloria, Oren Lyons, Joe de la Cruz