Here are the materials in EXC, Inc. v. Jensen (D. Ariz.). This is a federal appeal to a Navajo Nation Supreme Court decision affirming jurisdiction over the nonmember company (we posted those materials here).
DCT Order in EXC (denying motion to dismiss)
Navajo Court Defendants Concurrence in Motion to Dismiss
The first part of the article from SitNews:
The Superior Court for the State of Alaska, First Judicial District at Juneau, issued a decision with significant implications for tribal courts throughout Alaska in Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska v. State of Alaska Child Support Services Division. The Court’s order on October 25, 2011, reaffirms the Tribe’s inherent jurisdiction to handle the full range of family law issues affecting its citizens, including the particular issue of child support for the benefit of tribal children.
The Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska’s Press Release can be found here.
The order can be found here.
M. Brent Leonhard has posted his paper, “Closing a Gap in Indian Country Justice: Oliphant, Lara, and DOJ’s Proposed Fix,” on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
This paper analyzes whether DOJ’s proposed legislative fix to allow tribes to prosecute limited non-Indian domestic violence crimes is legally permissible by closely analyzing the decisions in Oliphant and Lara. Given the closely circumscribed requirements for the exercise of such power, and past decisions of various justices, this article concludes that it is within Congress’ power to recognize the inherent power of tribes to prosecute non-Indians for domestic violence crimes against Indians.
SENATOR DANIEL K. AKAKA INTRODUCES BILL TO PROTECT NATIVE WOMEN AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT
The Stand Against Violence and Empower Native Women (SAVE Native Women) Act would empower Tribes to prosecute violent crimes and improve prevention programs
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Indian Affairs Committee Chairman Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii) today introduced S.1763, the Stand Against Violence and Empower Native Women (SAVE Native Women) Act. The bill would provide Indian Country with jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit crimes on Indian lands, improve the Native programs under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), and improve data gathering programs to better understand and respond to sex trafficking of Native women.
Senators Al Franken (D-Minnesota), Tom Udall (D-New Mexico), Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Patty Murray (D-Washington), TimJohnson (D-South Dakota), Jeff Bingaman (D- New Mexico), Jon Tester (D-Montana) and Max Baucus (D-Montana) are cosponsors of the bill.
“According to a study by the Department of Justice, two-in-five women in Native communities will suffer domestic violence, and one-in-three will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime. To make matters worse, four out of five perpetrators of these crimes are non-Indian, and cannot be prosecuted by tribal governments. This has contributed to a growing sense of lawlessness on Indian reservations and a perpetuation of victimization of Native women,” said Senator Akaka.
“American Indian women suffer disproportionately from domestic violence and sexual assault, and the Violence Against Women Act must be updated to more effectively address their unique needs,” said Senator Franken.
“This legislation works to ensure services are available to survivors of assault in native communities, repair a fragmented criminal justice system, and give tribes more power to prosecute those who are committing such heinous crimes against women,” said Senator Udall.
“By strengthening tribal jurisdiction we are empowering our Native communities with the tools they need to fight back against instances of violence,” said Senator Begich.
“We cannot let the next generation of young Native women grow up as their mothers have-in unbearable situations that threaten their security, stability, and even their lives,” said Senator Akaka.
“With the introduction of this legislation, the sponsors are sending a clear message that Congress intends to build on the incredible momentum of VAWA to ensure that the epidemic of violence against Native women will end in our lifetime,” said Sarah Deer, Amnesty International’s Native American and Alaska Native Advisory Council Member.
“Senator Akaka’s SAVE Native Women Act has the potential to restore safety and justice for American Indian and Alaska Native women. It offers American Indian tribes the opportunity to increase life-saving protections for women living within tribal jurisdiction,” said Terri Henry, Co-chair of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) Task Force on Violence Against Women.
“This is an epidemic. It is unacceptable. And, we must stand against it,” said Senator Akaka. “I am committed to working with the co-sponsors, tribal leaders, NCAI and others who diligently work to protect at-risk Native women, to pass this much needed legislation.”
Senator Akaka’s floor statement introducing the bill today is available here:
http://akaka.senate.gov/statements-and-speeches.cfm?method=releases.view&id=28f371bf-c01f-4ea5-a42b-72359ea839e7
Audio file of Senator Akaka’s comments are available here:
http://demradio.senate.gov/actualities/akaka/103111_AKAKA_1_RADIO.mp3
Here is the Navajo Nation Supreme Court’s opinion in Rosenfelt & Buffington v. Johnson. From the court’s syllabus:
In this appeal of a Navajo Nation Labor Commission’s finding that termination of an employee was not for just cause because each of numerous violations were not substantial, and additionally progressive discipline was not imposed even though k’e measures through meetings were held with the employee for more than eight months, the Court reverses, discusses k’e measures, and sets the standard for substantial misconduct in cases of repeated minor violations.
And from the opinion itself:
When Appellant made its concerns about Appellee’s violations known to Appellee over the course of eight months through personal meetings and emails without imposing punishments, Appellant undertook a course of action in keeping with the Diné Fundamental Law, which emphasizes personal accountability through talking out, self-knowledge and self-correction. The Court notes that the situation presented to us also shows how little respect is accorded k’é measures by an employee when the employer undertakes such measures without also imposing punishments or threats of punishments. The employment workplace is where the people on the Navajo Nation now spend the larger share of our days in earning a living. This case illustrates that the societal change from family self-sufficiency (working independently to provide for one’s family) to wage earning (working for someone else) appears to have changed the perspective of some regarding the basic tenet of our culture that an individual voluntarily corrects errant conduct out of respect for others.
Unfortunately, self-accountability has not been smoothly translated to the modern workplace of employers, employees, paychecks and disciplinary sanctions. Appellee’s actions show a belief, apparently relying on an interpretation of how employment laws have evolved in our sister jurisdictions, that workplace violations require no corrective actions by an employee unless the employer has made a threat of future sanctions. While this state of workplace relationships may be acceptable in bilagaana jurisdictions, it is not the Diné way, nor will our laws support such a purely adversarial interpretation of employer-employee responsibilities to each other in the workplace when disputes occur.
Barbara Creel (who will be one of our distinguished speakers this weekend) has posted her paper, “Tribal Court Convictions and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Respect for Tribal Courts and Tribal People in Federal Sentencing,” on SSRN. It is forthcoming in the USF Law Review.
Here is the abstract:
This article critiques a proposal to include tribal court criminal convictions and sentences in the federal sentencing scheme. The proposal, as articulated by Kevin Washburn, calls for an amendment to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to count tribal court convictions in calculating an Indian defendant’s criminal history score to determine a federal prison sentence. Currently, tribal court convictions are not directly counted in criminal history, but may be used to support an “upward departure” to increase the Native defendant’s overall federal sentence.
Washburn’s proposal seeks to gain “respect” for tribal courts, based upon a premise that tribal convictions must be afforded the same weight and treatment as federal and state criminal convictions under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. This Article explores the idea of respect for tribal courts and convictions in the context of their history and connection to tribal peoples and communities. Ultimately, this Article concludes that respectful treatment would not tolerate placing a tribal defendant in such a powerless position within the federal sentencing hierarchy.
A proposal that would negatively impact only Native American defendants in a foreign justice system in the name of respect warrants critical review. As an Assistant Federal Public Defender, I had the opportunity to view the application of federal criminal laws from the front and the back end of the criminal justice system, from trial to post-conviction. As a Native woman, I have seen the impact of crime, justice, and federal sentencing on tribal people, families, and whole communities.
It is from this perspective that I focus the lens of respect on the work of tribal courts and criminal justice in Indian Country, and ultimately oppose any amendment in federal sentencing to count tribal court convictions to increase federal sentences for Native criminal defendants. A review of the historical diminishment of tribal authority over crime and punishment on the reservation, as well as the disparate impact of crime and punishment on Native peoples, leads to a rejection of counting tribal court convictions in federal sentencing. This Article proposes an alternative view that both respects Native American individuals caught in the criminal justice system and elevates tribal sovereignty.
As part of a promise I gave to the members of the National American Indian Court Judges Association today (via videotape), I offer (with apologies to Walter Echo-Hawk) ten of the most important tribal court decisions of the last 20 years (in no particular order).
1. In re Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians (Advisory Opinions)
4. Bugenig v. Hoopa Valley Tribe
5. Snowden v. Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe
6. In re Bacavi Certified Question (Interim Opinion)/In re Bacavi Cert. Question (Final Opinion)
7. Plains Commerce Bank (Band of Hoven) v. Long Family Land and Cattle Co.
8. Chilkat Indian Village IRA v. Johnson
Here is the order:
Election Decision for Cherokees
News coverage here.
A list of key documents from the Tulsa World here:
View Principal Chief Chad Smith’s final campaign disclosure report.
Here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.