tribal courts

Information on the Tribal Court Trial Advocacy Program

June 1, 2012Kate Fort

The result of a collaborative effort by the Bureau of Indian Affairs Office of Justice Services (OJS) and DOJ’s Access to Justice Initiative (AJI), the Tribal Court Trial Advocacy Program is the first national effort by DOI and DOJ to offer trial advocacy training with courses designed specifically for tribal courts and free training to the judges, public defenders and prosecutors who work in them. Training is provided in three topic areas – domestic abuse, illegal narcotics and sexual assault on children and adults – with faculty and instructional materials prepared by experts knowledgeable about tribal court issues. The program is unique because it also has training specifically for public defenders.

A pilot training session on domestic violence held by the OJS and the ATJ in August 2011 in Rapid City, S.D., proved so successful that the OJS and its federal partners provided funding for seven additional sessions. The first of those, which focused on illegal narcotics, was held March 13-15, 2012, in Phoenix, Ariz. Each of the six remaining sessions, to be held through the rest of 2012 and into 2013, will focus on one training topic. The schedule for the coming sessions is:
July 24-26, 2012, Duluth, Minn.
August 14-16, 2012, Durango, Colo.
September 11-13, 2012, Great Falls, Mont.
October 2-4, 2012, Seattle, Wash.
October 23-25, 2012, Chinle, Ariz.
January 15-17, 2013, Albuquerque, N.M.

For more information about the DOI-DOJ Tribal Court Trial Advocacy Program, which training topic will be offered at which site, and how to register for upcoming sessions, contact the BIA’s Indian Police Academy at 575-748-8151.

New Book: “Captured Justice: Native Nations and Public Law 280” by Duane Champagne and Carole Goldberg

June 1, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Captured Justice: Native Nations and Public Law 280

by Duane Champagne, Carole Goldberg

2012 • $30.00 • 244 pp • paper • ISBN: 978-1-61163-043-5 •LCCN 2011034877

The policy of forced assimilation, called “termination,” that Congress pressed upon Native Americans in the 1950s brought state criminal jurisdiction to more than half of all Indian reservations for the first time in American history. The law that accomplished most of this shift from a combination of tribal and federal control to state control is widely known as Public Law 280. Tribes did not consent to the new and alien forms of criminal justice, and the federal government provided no funding to state or local governments to ease the new burdens thrust upon them.

Present-day concerns about community safety in Indian country raise questions about the appropriate strategy for achieving that end. Is expanded state criminal jurisdiction an appropriate response, or should that option be off the table? Does the experience with Public Law 280 suggest conditions under which state jurisdiction is more or less successful?

Captured Justice is the first systematic investigation of the success or failure of the Public Law 280 program substituting state for tribal and federal criminal justice in Indian country. The authors first identify a set of six conditions that are necessary for criminal justice to succeed in Indian country. They then present the results of hundreds of interviews and surveys at sixteen reservations across the United States, tapping reservation residents, tribal officials and staff, and state and federal law enforcement officers and criminal justice personnel, to find out how the state jurisdiction regime is faring and to compare experiences on Public Law 280 reservations with those on non-Public Law 280 reservations. Before-and-after case studies of tribes that were able to remove state jurisdiction from their reservations complete the book.

Captured Justice is both an important assessment of an historic federal Indian policy that remains with us today, and a guide to future criminal justice policy for Indian country.

Caroline Mayhew in ICT on “VAWA Tribal Provisions and Race Discrimination Arguments”

June 1, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here.

An excerpt:

Interestingly, the prospect of enhanced tribal jurisdiction over non-members has raised the issue of racial discrimination in varied and even competing ways. Two recent statements by members of Congress, both of whom have been important allies in tribal law enforcement efforts including the enactment of the Tribal Law and Order Act, illustrate this point. Following passage of the Senate bill, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona released a statement claiming that “by subjecting individuals to the criminal jurisdiction of a government from which they are excluded on account of race,” the tribal jurisdiction provision “would quite plainly violate the Constitution’s guarantees of Equal Protection and Due Process.” Then, during the House Judiciary Committee’s markup of a bill that did not contain the tribal jurisdiction provisions, Representative Darrell Issa of California stated that the lack of such a provision raised questions of race discrimination, since whether an individual will be brought to tribal, state, or federal court for a domestic violence offense under current law depends on whether the defendant is Indian or non-Indian.

While seemingly in opposition to each other, neither one of these statements accurately reflects the current legal and political reality of Indian tribes. Instead, they illustrate how easy it can be for us to slip into a widely employed discourse of race that is not always helpful or relevant in the realm of Indian law and policy. Unfortunately, this mistake can obscure the role that racial discrimination is actually playing in the VAWA reauthorization debate.

Continue reading →

Utah State Judge Sues Ute Tribe to Enjoin Tribal Court Processes

May 30, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Poulson v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (D. Utah):

Poulson Complaint

Swain v Poulson Tribal Court Complaint

Reed v Dalton Tribal Court Complaint

An excerpt from the judge’s complaint:

This action arises out of the arrests of and/or criminal charges being brought against members of the Ute Indian Tribe by Duchesne County, Utah. As a result of these arrests and/or charges, members of the Ute Indian Tribe persist in bringing actions in the Ute Tribal Court against Duchesne County Deputy Sheriffs, Judges of the Duchesne County Justice Court and other Duchesne County officials and/or employees. By these actions, members of the Ute IndianTribe seek an award of damages for alleged civil rights violations and to enjoin their prosecutions for violations of State and/or local laws.

Ninth Circuit Vacates Sentence of Salt River Member

May 29, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Apparently, the judge who handled his case at trial was absent that day, so they got a substitute judge.

Here is the opinion in United States v. Harris.

Opening Ninth Circuit Brief Grand Canyon Skywalk Case

May 24, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

GCSD Opening Brief

Here is our last posting on the district court case.

Update on Skagit County GOP

May 21, 2012May 21, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

More materials here:

Bulletin – 2012 Skagit GOP Plank

Skagit GOP Platform 2012

Our previous posts are here and here and here.

An excerpt:

The district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that Mr. Chavez’s lawsuit against the Tribal officials could not be maintained in federal court under §1983 because all of his challenges to the Tribal officials’ actions relied on Tribal law. See Burrell v. Armijo, 456 F.3d 1159, 1174 (10th Cir. 2006) (“A § 1983 action is unavailable for persons alleging deprivation of constitutional rights under color of tribal law, as opposed to state law.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 315 (1981) (observing that acting under color of state law is “a jurisdictional requisite for a § 1983 action”). Turning to the Tribe, the court held–after noting that Mr. Chavez failed to even address the Navajo Nation’s sovereignty–that Congress had not authorized suit “against tribal entities pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” R. at 631. See Nanomantube v. Kickapoo Tribe in Kan., 631 F.3d 1150, 1152 (10th Cir. 2011) (“[A]n Indian tribe is not subject to suit in a federal or state court unless the tribe’s sovereign immunity has been either abrogated by Congress or waived by the tribe.”); E.F.W. v. St. Stephen’s Indian High Sch., 264 F.3d 1297, 1302-03 (10th Cir. 2001) (observing that tribal sovereign immunity “is a matter of subject matter jurisdiction”).
Mr. Chavez appeals.

Briefs and lower court materials are here.

Turtle Talk