tribal courts – Page 119

WSJ on New York’s Suit against Indian Country Payday Lenders

August 13, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here. Excerpt:

Courts have long upheld that tribal-owned businesses enjoy the same sovereign immunity as tribal governments and aren’t subject to state law. Matthew Fletcher, director of Michigan State University’s Indigenous Law and Policy Center, said the ownership structure of a firm has bearing on its legal defenses in such situations. Lenders owned by an individual member of a tribe but not deemed to be owned by the tribe itself would have less ground in attempting to block lawsuits or other state action, he said.

“I would assume the tribe and the tribal entity would respond by saying you don’t have jurisdiction over the tribal nation,” Mr. Fletcher said.

Petoskey Pond

August 9, 2013August 9, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

The pond next to the Pokagon tribal court. I just named it after the chief judge….

Pokagon Tribal Court

August 9, 2013August 9, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Pokagon court:

Materials in Douglas Luckerman v. Narrangansett Indian Tribe

August 8, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here are the materials in this pending matter over an alleged $1.1 million in attorney fees:

Luckerman Complaint

Narrangansett Motion to Dismiss

Luckerman Opposition/Motion to Remand

Narrangansett Reply + Sachem Affidavit

News coverage here.

Update in Nooksack Disenrollment Matter — Second Amended Complaint Dismissed

August 8, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are additional materials in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):

Kelly Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Nooksack Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Kelly Defendants’ Reply on Motion to Dismiss

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint 8-6-2013

An excerpt:

As Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs Kevin Washburn wrote recently, “in the exercise of sovereignty and self-governance, tribes have the right, like other governments, to make good decisions, bad decisions, and decisions with which others may not agree.” Aguayo, page 1. 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 Court 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.

All Things Considered on Prosecuting in Tribal Court

August 5, 2013ilpc

Here.

“We live here. We engage the community here. We have an understanding of the crimes and the crime scenes, and we have Hopi juries here, and it gives us an advantage in that there are some cases I believe the tribal courts can more effectively prosecute,” she [Jill Engel] says.

Eighth Circuit Decides DISH Network Must Exhaust Tribal Court Remedies in Dispute at Turtle Mountain

August 5, 2013August 5, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in DISH Network v. Laducer:

CA8 Opinion

Briefs are here.

Lower court materials are here.

Update in Omaha Tribal Liquor Jurisdiction Case

August 2, 2013August 2, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment:

Village of Pender Brief

Omaha Tribe Brief

The United States and the State of Nebraska have each filed briefs on the question of whether the Omaha Tribe’s 1854 reservation has been diminished/disestablished, with the federal government supporting the tribe and the state opposing:

Federal Brief

Nebraska Brief

Prior posts here, here, and here.