Here are the materials in Colombe v. Rosebud Sioux Tribe (D. S.D.), a convoluted case originating in tribal court on whether the tribal court can pierce the corporate veil of a former gaming management partner of the Tribe:
tribal courts
Saginaw Chippewa Disenrollment Effort Begins Anew
Here is the news article, via Pechanga. And here is an excerpt:
The “D” word has again surfaced on the Isabella Reservation: Disenrollment.
The Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe’s Office of Administrative Hearings last week conducted the first hearing in several years into the possibility of removing a current member from the rolls. No decision was reached.
The case involves an 87-year-old elder who lives in Pennsylvania. Anna Bell Atwood. She became a member of the Tribe in 1988 during the Tribe’s open enrollment period, a time when the Tribe reached out to Natives who might qualify to become members.
Since that time, Tribal membership has become extremely valuable. Members qualify for numerous benefits, including per-capita payments of several thousand dollars per month based on income from the Soaring Eagle Casino & Resort, free health care and other perks.
But a high birth rate has caused membership in the Tribe to grow rapidly. At the same time, the economic downtown has cut into the Tribe’s income.
Tribal attorney Shawn Frank admitted during the hearing that a change in the makeup of the Tribal Council had put the disenrollment issue back into the spotlight.
Navajo Supreme Court Issues Opinion on Paternity, DNA Testing, and Navajo Common Law
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
Here is the opinion in In re M.H.
Ninth Circuit Upholds Tribal Court Consecutive Sentencing under ICRA
Here is the opinion in Miranda v. Anchando:
Eastern Band Cherokee Tribal Court Order Incarcerating Non-Indian for Criminal Contempt of Court (1 Day in Jail)
Here is the order in In re Russell:
Federal Court Dismisses Claims Relating to Cheyenne & Araphoe Tribes’ Leadership Dispute
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
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
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.
Ninth Circuit Rejects Federal Court Jurisdiction in State Law, Nonmember Claims over Tribal Allotment
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:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.