On May 8th, the House Judiciary Committee marked up and passed H.R. 4970, a stripped-down Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA) that excludes a number of key provisions found in the Senate bill, including those bearing on the safety of Native women and communities. Get informed! Visit www.indianlaw.org for more information on how to get involved.
The full House of Representatives is expected to vote on its VAWA reauthorization bill soon — as early as mid week.
Here is the very interesting opinion in Hinkle v. Abeita.
An excerpt:
In this appeal, we are asked to reconsider whether our state courts have subject matter jurisdiction over tort claims filed against Indian defendants for conduct occurring on state highways within Indian country. Although binding precedent holds that our state courts do not have jurisdiction over such matters, see Hartley v. Baca, 97 N.M. 441, 442-43, 640 P.2d 941, 942-43 (Ct. App. 1981), we revisit the issue to determine whether evolving federal Indian Law jurisprudence and recent precedent from our own Supreme Court now require a different result. We hold that those developments do not alter our analysis in Hartley, and we hereby affirm the district court’s decision to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
If anyone has the briefs, we’d love to post them.
Here is yesterday’s opinion in Romero v. Goodrich.
Briefs are here.
An excerpt:
Ronald F. Romero, an enrolled member of the Pueblo of Nambé, through counsel filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1303 to seek relief after a tribal court conviction. The district court dismissed Romero’s petition as moot after the Pueblo commuted Romero’s sentence to time served and released him from tribal custody. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm.
Here are selected materials in Delorme v. Autos, Inc. (D. N.D.):
DCT Order Denying Motion to Certify Class
Delorme Motion for Summary Judgment — Fed Truth in Lending [includes many of the sales documents]
Delorme Motion for Summary Judgment — Usery
The most remarkable materials are the tribal court complaint and the settlement agreement with Autos, Inc. — executed the day after the filing of the complaint — that amounts to a full capitulation on the part of the auto dealer. Bonnie Delorme purchased a car at 25% interest after a $3000 down payment, never defaulted on the loan, and had her car repossessed anyway.
The federal district court decision of Judge Schreier that denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction in the case of Fox Drywall and Plastering, Inc. v. Sioux Falls Construction was a ringing endorsement of the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribal Court of Appeals decision in this case. It is one of the few (and perhaps only) federal court decisions indicating that the tribal court’s subject matter jurisdiction over non-Indians in the Montana context was so certain that the plaintiffs were not entitled to injunctive relief in that they could not show the likelihood of prevailing on the merits. Judge Schreier also noted that “there is a significant public interest in recognizing a tribe’s sovereign right to regulate activities by non-members on tribal trust land and a tribal court’s right to enforce those regulations, as long as that regulation falls within the confines of Montana” (p. 33).
Here is the tribal appellate decision at issue: Flandreau COA Decision II
And the rest of the materials in the case are here.
Here’s a new report from Borderlands Research and Education, based in Silverdale, WA: Anti-Indianism in Skagit County – 4-15-2012 Having practiced in Skagit County, it’s good to see this sort of sentiment, which I found to be fairly prevalent, brought to light. I mentioned the State Republican Party’s resolution requesting termination of tribal sovereignty, which this report addresses in considerable detail, in one of my articles. See 13 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 737 n.239 (2011).
Here are the materials in Fox Drywall & Plastering Inc. v. Marshall (D. S.D.):
Tribal Court Materials:
Flandreau Trial Court Decision I
Here:
Here:
NACDL and NAFD VAWA Letter 4 23 12
I find it odd that there’s such a heavy reliance on the testimony from the 1960s in the years leading to the passage of the Indian Civil Rights Act in this letter. Barbara Creel’s work is much more formidable and persuasive, probably because it’s not such a direct assault on all tribal courts using such broad (and now largely inaccurate) generalizations. Later this week, I’ll be presenting a paper about the 1977-79 NAICJA study on tribal courts where David Getches pointed out the direct analogy between tribal and rural justices systems — that analogy is still present, with all its plusses and minuses. I am persuaded that that’s a much more direct analysis (see also here). Most tribal courts aren’t going to be like federal courts; neither are magistrates and JOPs in rural New York or Iowa or Arizona.
Tova Indritz’s efforts to criticize the Tribal Law and Order Act a few years back are in this hearing:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.