A publication of the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO), The Pundit is primarily for those working on child support issues, including Friend of the Court. The editors asked for an article detailing how tribal courts recognize foreign (state) court child support orders. All of the information came from inquiries to the tribal courts in Michigan. The article includes detailed contact information for the tribes as well.
The publication is here. (PDF)
Here is the news coverage.
An excerpt:
In her decision handed down on March 12, Judge Wahwassuck found:
1. The Plaintiffs (have) failed to carry their burden of establishing that the Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas and/or its agents (the Defendants herein) have waived tribal sovereign immunity in this matter.
2. The Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they have a “property” right to their positions on the Gaming Commission, and thus have failed to demonstrate that their due process rights under the Indian Civil Rights Act were violated.
With these findings and her conclusion of law that the Defendants action was protected from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the Defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled.
Here are the materials in Admiral Ins. Co. v. Blue Lake Rancheria Tribal Court (N.D. Cal.):
From the order:
Admiral seeks a TRO enjoining the Defendants from exercising tribal court jurisdiction over Admiral and conducting any further proceedings against Admiral. Proposed Order, ECF No. 10-4. Admiral argues that a TRO “is needed in order to preserve the status quo so that the jurisdictional issues can be determined first. If this request is not granted, Admiral is forced to submit to the jurisdiction of the Tribal Court without due process or be subject to sanctions for failing to file a substantive motion on whether Admiral owes a duty to defend and indemnify WRI and have a motion for summary judgment be pending against it to which it cannot oppose, since an opposition would be viewed as subjection to the Tribal Court’s jurisdiction.” TRO Appl. 7
We should add that at least one legal commentator and at least one other tribal court has previously discussed non-Indian consent to tribal criminal jurisdiction. The article (which is about more than simply consent, and which was authored by Chris Chaney) is here:
And the case is here:
Hunter seems to be about implied consent, while Hjert seems to be about express consent (which was ruled by that court to be invalid).
Every now and again we like to highlight an interesting tribal court opinion. Personally, I’ve been waiting for many years to see an opinion on this subject, answered in the negative by the court.
Here is the opinion in Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe v. Hjert.
This case seems almost easy given that the tribal constitution self-limits tribal jurisdiction by referencing federal law, suggesting that Oliphant could control this case (see page 4, quoting the PGST Const.).
What about tribes that do not have such language?
Here are the materials:
Prior materials on the request for TRO are here.
As expected, given the denial in Cavanaugh. Here is today’s order (Shavanaux is on page 4).
Here is our post on this question — how (and whether) federal courts may use uncounseled tribal court convictions for sentencing purposes. The cert petitions are here. OSG doesn’t publish cert opps for unpaid petitions, so if anyone has them, please send along.
An excerpt:
The Hualapai council members say the unfinished site is an embarrassment to the tribe, which approved the project despite some internal objections about building on land roughly 30 miles from a place central to the Hualapai creation story. Traditional tribal belief places man’s origin on Hualapai lands.
“I believe the canyon is a sacred place. The Hualapai look at is as a church. Why take trash and throw it in the church. I voted against it,” said Philip Bravo, a former council member. “What does the tribe have out there? A half-finished building.”
Angry at the developer, the tribe passed an ordinance last year creating a legal path to effectively cancel the developer’s contract through the sovereign right of eminent domain.
The tribe set compensation for the seizure at $11.4 million, a sum they said represents the fair value of a project that the Las Vegas-based developer says is worth over $100 million.
“They took everything. And then the tribal court issued an order that we were trespassers if we were even there. You do understand this is like Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, don’t you?” said Troy Eid, a lawyer for the Grand Canyon Skywalk Development Corporation, which built the skywalk.
There is little doubt that tribes can legally seize property for the public good, much like a state or the federal government. But by seizing a non-tangible asset of a non-Indian company as a way to escape a contentious business deal, the tribe may have stepped into untested waters.
“I think on first glance the tribe is exercising a power that they have. Whether they are exercising it wisely is a different question,” said Addie Rolnick, an expert in Indian law at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas.
Petition for Bankruptcy filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Illinois.
Here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.