tribal courts

Navajo Supreme Court Issues Opinion on Paternity, DNA Testing, and Navajo Common Law

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in In re the Matter of the Guardianship of T.S.E.J.

 

Here is the court’s syllabus:

In this matter in which a putative father appealed the family court’s order for genetic testing and requirement that the parties reimburse the expenses of a guardian ad litem, the Court reverses the family court and provides a summary of the Navajo Nation paternity, custody and visitation law.

An excerpt:

It is in the best interest of children to have knowledge of their father and to be able to point to him as someone who desired to be their father without needless raising of questions of paternity that serve only to shake the stability of the family. Our courts must ensure a child does not consider himself or herself wótashke’ (fatherless child). In this case, where only one man has stood up to be the children’s father and, furthermore, has been taken to be the father by the mother and family, the Court has no business investigating further if the result would be to render that child fatherless.

Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Denial of Transfer of ICW Case to Bad River Chippewa Tribal Court

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in In re M.H.

Ninth Circuit Upholds Tribal Court Consecutive Sentencing under ICRA

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion in Miranda v. Anchando:

Miranda CA9 Decision

The briefs are here and here and here and here.

Eastern Band Cherokee Tribal Court Order Incarcerating Non-Indian for Criminal Contempt of Court (1 Day in Jail)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the order in In re Russell:

In re Russell

Federal Court Dismisses Claims Relating to Cheyenne & Araphoe Tribes’ Leadership Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are many of the materials in Wandrie-Harjo v. Prairie Chief-Boswell (W.D. Okla.):

Wandrie-Harjo vs. Janice Prairie Chief-Boswell – Order

Prairie Chief-Boswell Motion to Dismiss

C&A Motion to Dismiss + Exhibits

Plaintiff Opposition to Special Appearance Motion to Dismiss

Indian Country Complies with Child Support Requirements — California Possibly Only Exception

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

There has been much bad-mouthing of Indian country in the last week about the failure of some tribes to comply with child support requirements. Indianz’ first headline today is “Getting child support from Indian men almost ‘impossible.’”

California, more likely than not, is an outlier (assuming these reports are true). Federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1738B (Child Support Orders Act), requires tribes and states to give full faith and credit to child support orders. But perhaps the problem in California is a lack of tribal courts — relatively few tribes there utilize a tribal judicial system.

Michigan tribes comply. One tribe in Michigan recently reported that it has disbursed over $1.5 million to state courts in accordance with the child support law. Another tribe (the Grand Traverse Band) requires per capita gaming payments to be used to satisfy child support obligations first (18 GTB Code § 1609), a fairly typical provision for gaming tribes with RAOs. My suspicion is that the vast majority of tribes around the country comply — there are perhaps as many as 300 tribes with a functioning court system out there.

California tribes should get on board. These news items make all of Indian country look bad.

North Dakota Supreme Court Decides On-Reservation Jurisdiction Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Gustafson v. Poitra.

The court’s syllabus:

The appellate court may consider whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction and may consider the issue sua sponte.

A state court does not have subject matter jurisdiction where a non-Indian claimant initiates an action against Indian defendants over a lease of fee land owned by the Indian defendants within the exterior boundaries of the reservation.

And links to the appellant and appellee briefs.

Ninth Circuit Rejects Federal Court Jurisdiction in State Law, Nonmember Claims over Tribal Allotment

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in K2 America Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas Co.

Here is an excerpt:

In this appeal, we consider whether federal jurisdiction exists over a lawsuit between two Montana corporations alleging state law claims arising from a dispute over lands held by the United States in trust for various Indian allottees. We conclude that federal jurisdiction does not extend to the claims, and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Another excerpt:

The district court properly dismissed this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We need not—and do not—reach any other issues raised by the parties, including exhaustion of tribal remedies. We note, though, that our holding does not preclude K2 from seeking relief in Blackfeet Tribal Court. See, e.g., Longie, 400 F.3d at 591. “Indeed, there may be circumstances in which a nonmember plaintiff may have no forum other than the tribal courts in which to bring his claims.” Smith v. Salish Kootenai Coll., 434 F.3d 1127, 1140 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc).

And here are the briefs:

Continue reading →

Leech Lake Appeals Court Affirms Order for a New Election

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is that order:

LL App Ct Election Order 8-4-11

And we posted the trial court order here.

Fletcher at ACSBlog on the DOJ Legislative Proposal to Combat Violence against Indian Women

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the link to the post, titled “DOJ Takes Step Toward Addressing Violent Crime Against American Indian Women.”

An excerpt:

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has, for the first time, proposed a dramatic expansion of American Indian tribal criminal jurisdiction in its recommendations to Congress on the reauthorization of the Violence against Women Act. After decades of declining to support expanded tribal criminal jurisdiction, this proposal is a major watershed in the fight against Indian country crime. DOJ finally supports the reaffirmation of at least limited authority to prosecute such crime by the first responders in Indian country – Indian tribes.

In its narrative proposal (available here), DOJ acknowledges the epidemic of violence against American Indian women occurring daily in the United States, and especially in Indian country. Recent studies by university researchers and Amnesty International, among others, conclude that American Indian women suffer possibly the highest rates of violent crime – most notably, sexual assaults – of any demographic in the United States.

The proposal is a limited one, given the political climate, but symbolically important. It recognizes inherent tribal jurisdiction to enforce civil protection orders against all persons, Indian and non-Indian, an open question in current law. It also recognizes limited tribal criminal jurisdiction authority over non-Indians who commit domestic violence-related crimes. Sexual assaults are not included in the proposal. Despite these limitations, DOJ’s recommendations – coming on the heels of 2010’s Tribal Law and Order Act, which was the first significant expansion of tribal sentencing authority since 1986 – may pave the way toward greater ability of Indian tribes to respond to violent crime against Indian women in the future.