Here is the opinion in Jones v. BHP Bilton/New Mexico Coal Co.:
Here are the orders in Lomeli v. Kelly and Roberts v. Kelly:
Here are the materials in Adams v. Kelly II:
Adams v. Kelly II Michelle Roberts Declaration w Exh
And the press release: Continue reading
Here.
[¶15] B.B. argues that because custody has already been determined in the tribal court, the tribe has continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over paternity and support.
[¶16] We specifically held in Kelly, 2009 ND 20, ¶ 22, 759 N.W.2d 721, that custody can be bifurcated from other proceedings in marriage. “Thus, even if the district court determines that the reservation is the child’s home state and that the tribal court therefore has jurisdiction over child custody, the district court retains concurrent jurisdiction over the remaining incidents of the marriage and may choose to exercise that jurisdiction . . . .” Id. Although B.B. and A.T.H. never married, the bifurcation principle of Kelly nevertheless applies in this case because multiple parties and jurisdictions are involved and each has an interest in the outcome of the proceedings. We conclude that under Kelly, the paternity and support claims brought against B.B. in state court can be bifurcated from the custody action brought in Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Court.
[¶17] Recognizing that paternity and support claims are divisible from custody determinations, and in view of the factual similarities between this case and Doe, we conclude the state court has subject matter jurisdiction in this case.
Here are the materials in Wilson v. Shortbull (D. S.D.):
An excerpt:
Ms. Wilson does not object to the magistrate judge finding she failed to exhaust her tribal remedies. Rather, Ms. Wilson objects on the basis that she does not believe the tribal courts can be impartial because of their connection to OLC. (Docket 19). Ms. Wilson asserted this same argument in her response to defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Docket 16). This contention does not fall within any of the exceptions to the exhaustion requirement noted above. In addition, the court agrees with the magistrate judge in finding exhaustion of tribal remedies in this case is particularly appropriate because Ms. Wilson’s allegations are premised on the employment action of a tribally chartered organization. The court finds Ms. Wilson is required to exhaust her tribal remedies. Because Ms. Wilson has not exhausted those remedies, this court lacks jurisdiction over her action.
Here are the new materials in St. Germaine v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):
St Germain v. Kelly Motion for Order to Show Cause Re Contempt
St Germain v. Kelly Declaration of Leah Zapata
St. Germain v. Kelly Declaration of Agripina Smith
St. Germain v. Kelly Response to Plaintiffs Motion of Ord to Show Cause Re Contempt
Previous materials in this case are here and here.
Here is the opinion in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack App.):
An excerpt:
This appeal is from the Tribal Com1’s order dismissing Appellants· second amended complaint. Appellants requested the Tribal Court enjoin members of the Nooksack Tribal Council from conducting disenrollment proceedings against them. Appellants are understandably gravely concemed at the prospect of disenrollment. We understand how serious the prospect of disenrollment is to Appellants. and how it impacts their cultural. social and political identity.
We also recognize that determining its own membership is a hallmark of a tribe’s sovereignty. It is one of the few aspects of tribal sovereignty that has withstood the relentless attempts by outside forces to tear down tribal self-governance, and one of the few aspects of tribal sovereignty that has not been eroded by the federal government.
Judges are not sages. We do not delude ourselves into believing we have the wisdom of a Solomon. It is not our role to insert ourselves into the Tribe’s political fray. or second guess the political judgments made by the Tribe’s elected leaders or its voting members, even if we believe those judgments unwise. We, like the trial court. are limited to resolving legal questions where authorized by the Tribe’s Constitution and laws.
The nature of this dispute requires us to find the delicate balance between Nooksack lawand politics keeping in mind the equal importance attached to both Tribal membership and Tribal sovereignty. The Tribe’s Constitution guides us in this difficult task. which we are duty bound to perform.
The Nooksack judiciary is not the only Nooksack governmental body whose decisions are tethered to the Tribe’s Constitution and laws. The decisions of its elected officials are as well. The trial judge expressed it well and it is worth repeating:
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 Cotut 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.
Lower court materials are here.
Here is the opinion in In re Jayden D.
An excerpt:
Because the State did not meet its burden of establishing good cause to deny transfer to tribal court, the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying Yolanda’s motion to transfer. We reverse the order of the juvenile court and remand the cause with directions to sustain the motion to transfer.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.