Federal Court Asks for Additional Briefing re: “Bad Faith” Exception to Tribal Court Exhaustion Doctrine in Grand Canyon Skywalk Case

Here is yesterday’s order:

DCT Order 2-28-12

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:

Motion for TRO and Complaint

Hualapai Opposition

Supplement to Opposition to TRO

Update in Grand Canyon Skywalk Controversy (Another One)

Here:

Supplement to Opposition to TRO

News Article

State of Washington Legislature Considers Retrocession Bill

AP Story in the Seattle Times

Tenth Circuit Briefs in Civil Rights Complaint against Navajo Courts and Navajo Nation

Here are the materials:

Chavez Complaint

DCT Order Dismissing Chavez Complaint

Chavez Opening Brief

Navajo Appellee Brief

Idaho Law School Indian Law Conference on Tribal Courts

Looks like a great program!

Agenda here.

Federal Court Dismisses Casino Slip and Fall, Citing Tribal Court Exhaustion Doctrine

Here are the materials in Girmai v. Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians (S.D. Cal.):

Rincon Band Removal Notice

Exhibit 1 — State Ct Complaint

Rincon Band Motion to Dismiss

DCT Order Dismissing Girmai Complaint

Update in Grand Canyon Skywalk Controversy

New materials in the developer’s effort to avoid the tribe’s move to using eminent domain to end the controversy:

GCSD Complaint 2-16-12

GCSD Motion for TRO

GCSD Emergency Request for Service

Tribal Court Order 2-17

GCS Tribal Court Opposition

Additional news coverage here.

ICT: Tribal Judges Revive National Tribal Justice Resource Center

Courtesy Gina Jackson/ National Council of Family and Juvenile Court Judges
The National American Indian Court Judges Association recently reestablished the National Tribal Justice Resource Center in Boulder, Colorado. They are, from left, back row: Judges Winona Tanner, Cheryl Fairbanks, Susan Wells, Peggy Bird, and Winifred Thomas. Second row: Judges Gary Smith, Rusty Swan, Julie Yarlott, Darrell Dowry, and James Shepperd; First row: Judges Kevin Briscoe, Jill Tompkins, and Richard Blake.

Read more:http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/02/15/tribal-judges-revive-national-tribal-justice-resource-center-97699 http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/02/15/tribal-judges-revive-national-tribal-justice-resource-center-97699#ixzz1mZ2Nks6y

Two New Tribal Court Opinions from Turtle Mountain and Mille Lacs

The first, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians v. Williams, involves a facial challenge to the tribal exclusion ordinance:

williams appeal decision

The second, Davis v. Poitra, consolidated with Malaterre v. Belcourt School Dist. No. 7, involves tribal court jurisdiction over claims brought against the school district:

Davis v. Belcourt School District

Briefs in Merrill v. Altman (S.D. ICWA Case Previously Posted)

We posted the South Dakota Supreme Court’s opinion from December here.

Here are the briefs:

Merrill Opening Brief

Altman Brief

Merrill Reply