Here are the materials in Arocha v. Blackman (D. Mont.):
Montana Federal Court Allows Habeas Petition against Blackfeet to Move Forward
tribal courts
Wisconsin Lawyer [Wis. State Bar Magazine] Profile of the Oneida Family Court
Hon. Robert J. Collins has published “Tsi?latiliwahslu∙nihe kayanlahsla? (Of the place they make matters or issues right)” in the October 2023 issue of Wisconsin Lawyer.
Arizona COA Holds State Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction over Tribal Member Defendant in Claim Arising on State Highway on Reservation
Here is the opinion in Medina v. Estate of Cody:
An excerpt:
The issue before us is whether a plaintiff who is not an enrolled tribal member may bring a civil tort case in state court against an enrolled tribal member for conduct occurring within tribal reservation boundaries but on a stretch of land for which the State has been granted a highway right-of-way easement. We hold that a non-tribal plaintiff bringing such a case cannot hale a nonconsenting enrolled tribal member defendant into state court for actions arising out of conduct on the defendant’s reservation, even when that conduct occurs on a state highway. Accordingly, we affirm.
MCN District Court Orders Enrollment Office to Reconsider Denials of Freedmen Descendants’ Citizenship Applications
Here is the order in Grayson v. Citizenship Board (MCN Dist. Ct.):
mcn dist. ct., order and opinion on appeal from citizenship board of the muscogee (creek) nation denial of creek freedmen citizenship application, 09272023.pdfDownload
Mayberry and Garrow on Fairness for Self-Represented Tribal Court Litigants
Danielle J. Mayberry and Carrie E. Garrow have published “A Portrait of Tribal Courts: Tribal Court Tools and Levers to Ensure Procedural Fairness for Self-Represented Litigants” in the Journal of Appellate Practice and Process. PDF
Highly recommended!
New Mexico Federal Court [Browning, J.] Holds State Courts Do Not Possess Jurisdiction over Tort Claims Brought against Tribal Gaming but Federal Courts Have No Jurisdiction to Do Anything About It
Here are the materials in Pueblo of Pojoaque v. Biedsheid (D.N.M.):
Lexington Insurance Co. v. Smith [Suquamish] Ninth Circuit Oral Argument Video
Briefs here.
New Scholarship on AI and Indian Country
Adam Crepelle and Ilia Murtazashvili have posted “Artificial Intelligence on Indian Reservations in the United States: Prospects and Challenges” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Increases in computing power have contributed to tremendous improvements in Artificial Intelligence (AI). Despite increasing deployment of AI by public, private, and nonprofit organizations, consideration of AI on American Indian reservations remains in its infancy. In this paper, we suggest that consideration of Internet policy on tribal lands should be expanded beyond consideration of barriers to broadband access to include responsible adoption of emergent technologies, including AI. To facilitate such consideration, we consider the prospects and challenge for deployment of AI in public, private, and nonprofit applications on Indian reservations in the United States. Our particular focus is on how specific aspects of reservations offer unique opportunities as well as challenges for deployment of AI. We also argue that an important frontier in the Indigenous Data Sovereignty movement is to develop principles for responsible use of AI on reservations.
Of note, the paper asserts that AI might be especially useful for tribal courts: “Rightly or wrongly, people may have more confidence in AI than tribal judges.” OUCH.
Early Materials in Law Firm Dispute with Skull Valley Goshute
Here are the materials so far in Sichenzia Ross Ference LLP v. Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians of Utah (S.D. N.Y.):
Eighth Circuit Holds Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act Does Not Apply to Tribes
It is true that Indian reservations are “physically within the territory of the United States.” United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 322 (1978) (emphasis added). The PKPA’s definition of “State,” however, includes “a territory . . . of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(b)(8) (emphasis added), which is most naturally understood to mean a political entity that is not a state but is still “[a] part of the United States . . . with a separate legislature (such as Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands).” Territory, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019); see, e.g., 48 U.S.C. § 1541(a) (“The Virgin Islands . . . are declared an unincorporated territory of the United States of America.”). And the Supreme Court has made clear that within our constitutional order, such “territories” are distinct from Indian tribes.
***
Our conclusion that the PKPA does not apply to Indian tribes is further supported by the fact that when Congress intends for tribes to be subject to statutory full-faith-and-credit requirements, it expressly says so.
***
For the reasons explained above, we conclude that the PKPA does not apply to Indian tribes. As a result, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court is not obligated under that statute to enforce the North Dakota court orders awarding custody of C.S.N. to Nygaard. The district court properly granted summary judgment to the Tribal Court.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.