Here are the materials in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Star Trucking (D. Wyo.):
Star Trucking Notice of Removal (includes tribal court complaint)
Here are the materials in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Star Trucking (D. Wyo.):
Star Trucking Notice of Removal (includes tribal court complaint)
Kristen Carpenter has published her essay, “Individual Religious Freedoms in American Indian Tribal Constitutional Law” in our new book, The Indian Civil Rights Act at Forty (UCLA American Indian Studies Center Publications 2012). It is available on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
Written on the 40th Anniversary of the Indian Civil Rights Act, this article engages with a prominent critique of individual rights in tribal communities, namely that they effectuate the ‘assimilation’ of tribal people, values, and institutions. On the one hand, because American Indian religions emphasize collective values and experiences, this critique is particularly apt in the religion context, and the imposition of individual rights norms recalls the federal government’s historic efforts to destroy tribes by eradicating tribal religious practices. Moreover, in many tribal communities, religion is conceptualized and practiced not in terms of ‘rights’ but rather ‘duties’ to other people, plants, animals, natural features, and the ceremonies themselves. On the other hand, some Indian tribes have historically recognized personal liberties in spiritual practices, and now consider it an obligation of self-government to protect individual interests in religion. This article explores these themes, particularly as they manifest in tribal constitutional law, which reveals a broad spectrum of rights and duties, individual and collective protections. The article also elaborates on several ways that tribes recognize individual rights in the context of tribal culture, namely using tribal custom as a basis for interpreting positive law on individual religious rights, maintaining separate institutions for the resolution of legal disputes about religion, and engaging in constitutional reform to change religious rights provisions that are inconsistent with tribal values. In the final analysis, the article observes that that while many challenges remain, tribal governments often try to facilitate individual and collective interests in religious freedom today.
Here is the complaint in FTC v. Payday Financial LLC (D. S.D.).
Other docs are here at the FTC site:
Here.
This appears to be an effort to avoid a tribal court trial in the wrongful death action brought by an oil worker at the Wind River Reservation (news coverage here).
Update: Last week’s hearing transcript here: encana-v-st-clair-transcript-of-march-2-pi-hearing REV (H/T)
Exhibit A – Tribal Court Orders
Exhibit B — Tribal Appellate Court Order
Exhibit C — tribal court complaint
Exhibit E — Encana Jurisdictional Submissions
Exhibit F — DHS Jurisdictional Submissions
Exhibit M — Northern Arapaho Motion to Intervene
Exhibit N — Eastern Shoshone Motion to Intervene
Exhibit P — Order Allowing Intervention
Exhibit Q1 — Compilation of Tribal Court Pleadings
DCT Order Granting Estate Motion to Intervene
Defendant Opposition to Motion for PI
The flap over Judge Cebull’s email is controversial.
But Judge Cebull’s record as a tribal court judge raises a completely different question for me. How many federal court judges previously served as a tribal court judges? Does it help or hurt their nominations?
Sen. Leahy mentioned Judge Cebull’s record as a tribal court judge in passing, and in a positive light. See the hearing testimony in this PDF at page 45, the first page of the document.
Tribal court experience didn’t seem to help Arvo Mikkanen’s nomination, unfortunately.
Does anyone know about other examples?
Here is yesterday’s order:
The court stated:
On the day before oral argument, Plaintiff filed a supplemental statement of facts, including thirteen new exhibits, purportedly showing bad faith on the part of the tribe. Doc. 21. Plaintiff asserted for the first time at oral argument that this new information and the proffered testimony from the chairwoman of the tribal council would show that the bad faith exception applies. See Redwolf, 196 F.3d at 1065 (a party is exempt from exhausting its claims in tribal court where “an assertion of tribal jurisdiction is motivated by a desire to harass or is conducted in bad faith”).
By raising this issue at the last minute, Plaintiff has provided the Court with no briefing on the contours of the bad faith exception and has afforded Defendants little meaningful opportunity to respond. The Court cannot conclude that the bad faith exception applies on such an incomplete record. Because Plaintiff’s bad faith argument appears to be colorable, the Court will afford the parties an opportunity to brief the issue. The parties should address relevant case law on the bad faith exception, what evidentiary showing of bad faith is required, and the evidence each side claims in support of its position. Because time is important in Plaintiff’s claim, the Court will require the briefing in short order.
Materials are here:
AP Story in the Seattle Times
You must be logged in to post a comment.