tribal courts
House Barely Passes VAWA Reauthorization (without Tribal jurisdiction provisions)
Here.
Tenth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Section 1983 Claim against Navajo Nation and Navajo Courts
Here is the unpublished opinion in Chavez v. Navajo Nation Tribal Courts.
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.
Additional VAWA Reauthorization Materials
Here is the Administration’s policy statement on the VAWA reauthorization, largely opposition to the House version.
And here is the House Judiciary Committee Report on the H.R. 4970, VAWA Reauthorization (HRPT-112-HR4970cj). According to the Report, “The justification for why these [tribal] provisions are necessary is also questionable. Proponents of these provisions tout unverifiable statistics about the rate of non-Indian violence against Indian women on Indian land…”
VAWA Reauthorization Bill to be Considered by Rules Committee Today at 5PM
Here is the House Bill:
H.R. 4970, the VAWA reauthorization bill will be considered by the Rules Committee today at 5pm. The hearing can be viewed at: http://rules.house.gov/Legislation/hearings_details.aspx?NewsID=834
Instead of the three tribal provisions in S. 1925 that would:
- Provide Indian tribes criminal jurisdiction over domestic violence, dating violence, and violations of protective orders that occur on Indian lands;
- Provide Indian courts civil jurisdiction to issue and enforce protection orders. Excludes Indian courts in Alaska from that jurisdiction, except with respect to the Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Islands Reserve.
- Amend the federal criminal code to increase the maximum federal penalties for assault convictions.
H.R. 4970 (above) instead includes section 905 that authorizes and encourages the Attorney General to appoint U.S. Attorney Tribal Liaisons in each judicial district that includes Indian Country to serve a domestic violence tribal liaison. The duties of the tribal liaison include:
- Encouraging and assisting in arrests and Federal prosecution for crimes, including misdemeanor crimes, of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking that occur in Indian country.
- Conducting training sessions for tribal law enforcement officers and other individuals and entities responsible for responding to crimes in Indian country to ensure that such officers, individuals, and entities understand their arrest authority over non-Indian offenders.
- Developing multidisciplinary teams to combat domestic and sexual violence offenses against Indians by non-Indians.
- Consulting and coordinating with tribal justice officials and victims’ advocates to address any backlog in the prosecution of crimes, including misdemeanor crimes, of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking that occur in Indian country.
- Developing working relationships and maintaining communication with tribal leaders, tribal community and victims’ advocates, and tribal justice officials to gather information from, and share appropriate information with, tribal justice officials.
VAWA’s Tribal Provisions Better Protect Native Women Locally
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.
New Mexico COA Revisits State Jurisdiction over State Controlled Highways in Indian Country — Reaffirms Tribal Sovereignty
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.
Tenth Circuit Affirms Nambé Pueblo Tribal Court Conviction
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.
Federal Court Declines to Certify Class in Truth-In-Lending/Usury Claims against Auto Dealers Near Turtle Mountain
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.
Guest Post by Frank Pommersheim on the Recent Federal Court Decision Affirming Flandreau Tribal Court Jurisdiction over Nonmember Business
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.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.