tribal courts – Page 13

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.

DALL-E’s answer to “robot as tribal judge”

Early Materials in Law Firm Dispute with Skull Valley Goshute

August 21, 2023Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials so far in Sichenzia Ross Ference LLP v. Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians of Utah (S.D. N.Y.):

1 Complaint.pdf Download

7 Motion for Injunction.pdf Download

22 Motion to Dismiss.pdf Download

23 Response to Motion for Injunction.pdf Download

25 Reply.pdf Download

28 DCT Order Denying Injunction.pdf Download

Eighth Circuit Holds Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act Does Not Apply to Tribes

August 15, 2023Kate Fort

Decision

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.