Here:
FINAL Tribal Defense Resource Guide
tribal courts
Ninth Circuit Holds Shoshone-Bannock Land Use Office/Court Has No Jurisdiction over Nonmember on Nonmember Lands
Here is the opinion in Evans v. Shoshone-Bannock Land Use Policy Commission. The court’s syllabus:
Reversing in the district court’s denial of a motion for preliminary injunction and dismissal of an action seeking to enjoin tribal court proceedings, the panel held that the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes lacked the power to regulate the land use of the plaintiff, a nonmember who owned land in fee simple within the Fort Hall Reservation.
The panel held that the plaintiff was not required to exhaust tribal remedies before bringing suit in federal court because the tribal court plainly lacked jurisdiction. The panel held that because the plaintiff was an owner of non-Indian fee land, the Tribes’ efforts to regulate him were presumptively invalid under Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), and an exception for the regulation of nonmember activity that directly affects a tribe’s political integrity, economic security, health, or welfare did not apply. The panel reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Briefs and lower court materials are here.
Attorney Sanctioned by State for Behavior in Tribal Court
Minnesota Supreme Court decision here.
The Director argues that Michael’s e-mail questioning the tribal court’s impartiality violated Rule 8.4(d). Michael counters that her accusation regarding the tribal court’s impartiality was well founded and, therefore, was not a violation of Rule 8.4(d). Similar to the misconduct in Getty, the conclusion that Michael’s conduct constitutes a violation of Rule 8.4(d) rests on the manner in which she raised her concerns about the tribal court’s alleged unfairness. Even if Michael could establish that her concerns were well founded, Michael’s flippant rhetorical question at the end of the e-mail that she addressed to the presiding tribal court judge and sent to opposing counsel was unprofessional and disrespectful. Michael’s conduct demonstrates a failure to “show . . . restraint and . . . respect for the judicial system even while disagreeing strongly with it or its decisions.” In re Getty, 401 N.W.2d at 671; cf. In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634, 645-47 (1985)
Grand Canyon Skywalk Cert Petition on SCOTUSblog Watch List
Here.
VAWA Pilot Project Final Notice
Here:
VAWA Pilot Project Final Notice November 29 2013
Summary:
This final notice establishes procedures for Indian tribes to request designation as participating tribes under section 204 of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, on an accelerated basis, under the voluntary pilot project described in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act; establishes procedures for the Attorney General to act on such requests; and solicits such requests from Indian tribes.
Part 1: Update on Tribal Membership/Disenrollment Issues at Grand Ronde — Complaint Filed
Here is the complaint in Williams v. Leno (Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Tribal Ct.):
Williams v Leno Grand Ronde Tribal Court Complaint For Sanctions And Declaratory Relief
And the accompanying press release:
Lawsuit Filed Against Officials of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Challenging Illegal Enrollment Audit and Resulting Disenrollment Proceedings
Grand Ronde, OR – An ethics lawsuit has been filed in Grand Ronde Tribal Court against top officials of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde regarding the proposed disenrollment of as many as 1,000 tribal members. The lawsuit names the Tribal Council Chairman Reyn Leno and Enrollment Department Head Penny Deloe and alleges that they breached tribal law by disclosing members’ enrollment records and personal information to a third-party consulting firm in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Part 2: Update on Tribal Membership/Disenrollment Issues at Grand Ronde — Tribe Statement
Here is a statement from the tribe:
The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde is conducting an enrollment audit. The audit fulfills one of the tasks assigned in the Tribal Strategic Plan for 2010, which was adopted in August of 2009. That plan was formulated after nearly two years of development that began with a Strategic Futures conference in 2007 involving Tribal leaders and members. The plan directed Enrollment to audit all enrollment files and applications, track reasons for denials, and audit blood quantum records with the goal of strengthening the Grand Ronde Family Tree.
Recently some statements have cropped up on social media sites regarding the Tribe’s Enrollment audit. One of them even featured the Tribe’s emblem and could have led people to believe it was an official statement from the Tribe. It was not. In addition, the statements contain extremely misleading and false information. For example, the statement that up to 20% of the Tribe is being disenrolled is simply not true. Audit proceedings are ongoing and in fact, over the last several months a number Tribal members and their families. have provided the necessary information to clear up inconsistencies in their files and resolve issues related to their enrollment.
Tribal Council cannot make any specific comments on the Enrollment Audit until audit proceedings have been completed. The Tribal Council does not see enrollment files until an Enrollment Committee recommendation is presented.
There is an established process under the Enrollment Ordinance for addressing loss of membership that includes working with Enrollment Staff, then hearings before the Enrollment Committee, a hearing before Tribal Council., and ultimately an appeal to Tribal Court and the Tribal Court of Appeals.Over the years our Tribal membership, through Constitutional amendments, has consistently pushed for tightening our membership requirements. As elected officials the Tribal Council took an oath of office to uphold the Tribal Constitution and the laws of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde. In that same pledge, the Council swore that they would perform all duties required of them by the Constitution and the laws of the Tribe. The Council knows this process is not any easy one for the Tribal community But the Council is committed to getting through it with diligence and compassion.
We also attach an email we received from the tribe regarding our previous post, the contents of which we received from a reliable source, but apparently there was a misunderstanding on our part:
Dear Mr. Fletcher:
On Nov. 19 you posted an article regarding the Grand Ronde Tribe and some disenrollment actions. The article is one that has been posted by an individual on several social media sites. It is false and misleading. I am troubled to see it on Turtle Talk, a site that represents Michigan State University’s Indigenous Law Center and one that holds credibility in the eyes of many readers, both Native and non-Native. Here is the actual statement from the Grand Ronde Tribe on the current issue. I hope you will see fit to correct the misrepresentation on Turtle Talk.
Sincerely,
Siobhan Taylor
Public Affairs Director
Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde
We always strive to give equal time to parties in dispute, and generally do not take sides. We let the material speak for itself.
Opening Nooksack COA Brief in Roberts v. Kelly
Illinois Law Review Student Note on Uncounseled Tribal Court Convictions and ICRA
The University of Illinois law Review has published “Uncounseled Tribal Court Convictions: The Sixth Amendment, Tribal Sovereignty, and the Indian Civil Rights Act.”
Here is the abstract:
Tribal courts tasked with the prosecution of Native American defendants are not constrained by many Constitutional provisions, including the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in criminal proceedings. Currently, the Indian Civil Rights Act only requires representation in tribal court prosecutions of indigent defendants that may lead to incarceration of more than one year. State and federal courts require the opportunity of representation for all defendants in criminal proceedings. This discrepancy between the rights afforded in tribal courts and in state and federal courts lead to unique legal issues for Native American defendants indicted in federal court after being convicted without counsel in a tribal court.
Native Americans prosecuted under federal re-peat-offender statues could be exposed to harsher penalties based on prior uncounseled tribal con-victions. Thus, even if a Native American lacked representation in tribal court, those convictions might be used as predicate offenses for the purposes of federal repeat-offender laws. Different approaches to this issue are presented from the Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits. This Note ad-dresses the reasoning of each Circuit and offers a Recommendation that balances tribal sovereignty concerns, Sixth Amendment ramifications, and justice implications for both victims and defendants in the tribal court system.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.