tribal courts

Fletcher: “A Unifying Theory of Tribal Civil Jurisdiction”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Please see “A Unifying Theory of Tribal Civil Jurisdiction” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This paper addresses one of the most dynamic and useful areas of American Indian law. I situate my arguments between two competing and intractable theories dominating the field – the consent theory, which limits tribal jurisdiction to those who expressly consent to tribal governance; and the territory theory, which expands tribal jurisdiction to anyone in Indian country. The consent theory unnecessarily undercuts tribal authority on Indian lands, assuming without evidence that nonconsenters will not receive a fair shake in tribal forums. Meanwhile, the territory theory unnecessarily exposes nonconsenters to Indian authority on non-Indian owned land, where tribal power is weakest and least justified.

I propose a simpler solution that unites the two theories and brings realism to the discussion. Where activities occur on Indian lands, tribal jurisdiction should be presumed subject to a simple fairness test any court could conduct, but that is currently (and ironically) barred by the Supreme Court. The reality is that tribal governments are already successfully exercising this power, but the common law is lax in its recognition of tribal governance, generating unpredictability and confusion.

Substantive comments welcome.

Fletcher Paper on “Tribal Justice Systems”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

I drafted a paper titled “Tribal Justice Systems” for the Allegheny College Undergraduate Conference “Democracy Realized? The Legacies of the Civil Rights Movement” and posted it on SSRN. You can download here.

Here is the abstract:

This short paper is produced for the Allegheny College conference Democracy Realized? The Legacies of the Civil Rights Movement (March 28-29, 2014).

United States Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, authored the Court’s opinion in Williams v. Lee, a decision hailed as the opening salvo in the modern era of federal Indian law. The Williams decision was the work of the liberal wing of the Court, with important input by Chief Justice Warren and Justices Brennan and Douglas. Williams, a ringing endorsement of inherent tribal governance authority, more specifically endorsed tribal justices systems as embodied in tribal courts. Without Williams and similar cases, it is unlikely that tribal governments and Congress would act to develop tribal justice systems. Williams, and the tribal courts that arose as a result, was a powerful civil rights decision that commentators rightfully have linked to Brown v. Board of Education.

This paper will survey several tribal justice systems in an effort to identify commonalities and complexities. There are hundreds of tribal justice systems in the United States; each of them unique in the details, but many of them similar to other tribal, state, and federal courts.

The paper is divided into three sections. The first two parts include a section on adversarial tribal justice systems and a section on non-adversarial tribal justice systems, often called restorative justice systems. The third part involves greater discussion of the complexities of incorporating tribal customary and traditional law into tribal common law.

In case one wonders, “Representing Justice” by Judith Resnik and Dennis Curtis influenced the paper.

 

Colville Seeks Chief Judge

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the announcement:

Chief Judge JA

 

Federal Court Rejects Narragansett Effort to Dismiss Attorney Fees Suit on Immunity Grounds

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here are the updated materials in Luckerman v. Narragansett Indian Tribe (D. R.I.):

18-1 Narragansett Motion for Reconsideration

19-1 Luckerman Response

20 Narragansett Reply

22 DCT Order Denying Reconsideration

An excerpt:

On August 29, 2013, this Court denied Defendant Narragansett Indian Tribe’s (“Tribe”) motion to dismiss, but stayed adjudication of the case pending tribal exhaustion.1 Now, the Tribe has filed a motion for reconsideration of that decision (ECF No. 18), re-emphasizing the Tribe’s position that its tribal sovereign immunity bars the instant lawsuit, and asking again that the Court dismiss the claims brought by Plaintiff Douglas J. Luckerman. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

Earlier, the federal court remanded the case to tribal court for exhaustion purposes, post here. Other lower court materials here and here.

Osage Supreme Court Decision in Red Eagle v. Red Corn & Osage Nation Congress

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

SPC-2013-03 Slip Opinion

News coverage — “Path cleared for Osage chief’s impeachment trial” — here.

Indian Law Resource Center Report on Tribal Capacity for Enhanced Sentencing

Kate Fort

Report here.

The Indian Law Resource Center recently released, Restoring Safety to Native Women and Girls and Strengthening Native Nations ─ A Report on Tribal Capacity for Enhanced Sentencing and Restored Criminal Jurisdiction. The report examines existing literature on the readiness among Indian nations to exercise enhanced sentencing authority under TLOA and fuller criminal jurisdiction over all perpetrators of violent crimes under VAWA 2013 or other future legislation. It also identifies challenges facing Indian nations in exercising such authority and how some Indian nations are moving forward to increase their capacity to safeguard Native women in their communities. The report, available at http://indianlaw.org/content/restoring-safety-native-women-and-girls-and-strengthening-native-nations, concludes with ten recommendations aimed at ending violence against Native women and girls and strengthening the ability of Indian nations to address this crisis. We hope that the report will guide the Center, and perhaps others, in better assisting Indian and Alaska Native nations to make their communities safe places.

Nooksack COA Briefing in Roberts v. Kelly Complete

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Roberts v Kelly COA Opening Brief of Appellants

Roberts v Kelly COA Response Brief of Appellees

Roberts v Kelly COA Reply Brief of Appellants

Lower court materials here.

Year-End News Coverage of Nooksack Disenrollments Controversy

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

An excerpt:

The 306 people fighting to stay on the Nooksack Indian Tribe’s membership rolls won a rare legal victory recently when Tribal Court Chief Judge Raquel Montoya-Lewis ruled that tribal leaders had violated their rights by denying them $250-per-person Christmas checks that were mailed to everyone else in the 2,000-member tribe.

But the ruling didn’t put any extra presents under anyone’s tree. While Montoya-Lewis ruled that it was illegal to deny the 306 the same treatment as other tribe members before their legal status is determined, she also decided that she had no legal authority to order Chairman Bob Kelly and his supporters on the tribal council to issue checks to anyone.

The episode was one more example of the difficulties that the 306 have faced during the past year, as they try to get courts to block the move to strip them of tribal membership under a process known as disenrollment.

Katherine Florey on Tribal Court Jurisdiction

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Katherine Florey has published “Beyond Uniqueness: Reimagining Tribal Courts’ Jurisdiction” (PDF) in the California Law Review. The abstract:

If there is one point about tribal status that the Supreme Court has stressed for decades, if not centuries, it is the notion that tribes as political entities are utterly one of a kind. This is to some extent reasonable; tribes, unlike other governments, have suffered the painful history of colonial conquest, making some distinctive treatment eminently justifiable. But recent developments have demonstrated that, for many tribes, uniqueness has its disadvantages. In the past few decades, the Supreme Court has undertaken a near-complete dismantling of tribal civil jurisdiction over nonmembers. Under current law, tribes have virtually no authority to permit nonmembers to be haled into tribal courts-even when nonmembers have significant ties to the tribe and have come onto the reservation for personal gain. Tribal uniqueness has thus come to include tribes’ singular inability to exercise jurisdiction over nonmembers, despite the reality that people and commerce move freely across tribal and nontribal land. 

This is a mistake. Tribal court jurisdiction has much in common with broader notions of personal jurisdiction, and the Court’s failure to recognize this commonality limits and distorts its analysis. Indeed, no good reason exists why current personal jurisdiction doctrines could not be adapted to encompass the issues that tribal court jurisdiction presents; that is true even if one concedes various premises of the Court’s opinions, such as the idea that it is inherently burdensome in most cases for nonmembers to defend in tribal court. Personal jurisdiction doctrine is perfectly suited to addressing the often-complex fact patterns that characterize modern disputes involving Indian country because minimum contacts analysis allows courts to take a nuanced, flexible view of the degree of connection between the defendant and the forum. For these reasons, this Article argues that limitations on tribal court jurisdiction over nonmembers should be recharacterized as limits on personal jurisdiction. This would both harmonize tribal courts’ jurisdiction with that of federal and state courts, and do a better job than current doctrine in balancing the legitimate interests of both tribes and nonmember defendants.

Fletcher Paper on the Seminole Tribe and the Origins of Indian Gaming

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

At the invitation of Alex Pearl and the FIU Law Review to write a symposium piece on Florida Indian history and law, a challenge for me since I know very little about it, I came up with “The Seminole Tribe and the Origins of Indian Gaming.” Assuming the law review finds it publishable, it will appear in the FIU Law Review alongside the work of luminaries like Siegfriend Weissner and Sarah Krakoff.

Here is the abstract:

The Seminole Tribe of Florida has played perhaps the most important role in the origins and development of Indian gaming in the United States of any single tribe. The tribe opened the first tribally owned high stakes bingo hall in 1979. The tribe in 1981 was involved in one of the earliest lower court decisions forming the basis of the legal theory excluding most states from the regulation of high stakes bingo, a theory that Congress largely codified in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) years later. The tribe was a party to the Supreme Court decision in 1996 that radically altered the bargaining power between tribes and states over the negotiation and regulation of casino-style gaming under IGRA. And more recently, the tribe has been a leading participant in negotiations and litigation over the regulatory landscape of Indian gaming after the 1996 decision. The Tribe is one of the most successful Indian gaming tribes in the nation.

This paper traces that history, but also offers thoughts on how the culture and traditional governance structures of the Seminole Tribe played a part in its leadership role in the arena of Indian gaming.