Split Arizona Supreme Court Holds that Tribal Judges May Serve on State Redistricting Panel

Here is the opinion in  Adams v. Comm’n on Appellate Court Appointments.

An excerpt describing the tribal judge in question, Paul Bender:

Bender, an independent, stated on his application that he serves as “Chief Judge of two Arizona tribal courts.” Bender, a law professor at Arizona State University, serves as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation and the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals of the San Carlos Apache Tribe.

And from the analysis:

Consistent with the tribes’ distinctive status, Arizona’s constitution and laws generally do not include tribes within the meaning of the word “public.” Cf. Ariz. Const. art. 20, § 4 (referring separately to “public lands” and “lands . . . owned or held by . . . Indian tribes”). As noted above, see supra ¶¶ 23-29, Arizona’s constitution and statutes refer in many places to public office or public officers (for example, in provisions governing recall or financial disclosure), but none of those provisions has been construed to embrace tribal offices. Indeed, at oral argument, counsel could not identify any instance in Arizona law in which the word “public” has been interpreted to refer to Indian tribes.

From the dissent:

Giving the term “public office” the broad construction that § 1(3) suggests, I would conclude that Bender, as chief justice of two tribal courts, holds public office. At oral argument, amicus Valley Citizens’ League’s counsel (advocating for Professor Bender’s eligibility) expressly stated that Bender is a public officer of the respective tribes he serves. The constitutions and bylaws of both the San Carlos Apache and Fort McDowell Yavapai tribes support this acknowledgement, expressly delegating the judicial authority of their respective nations to their judiciaries. And it is indisputable that the judicial powers of a tribal nation are governmental powers of a sovereign. See 25 U.S.C. § 3631 (2006) (recognizing inherent sovereign authority of each tribal government’s judiciary); Penn v. United States, 335 F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir 2003) (“[A] tribal court judge is entitled to the same absolute judicial immunity that shields state and federal court judges.”). As a judge, therefore, Bender exercises a portion of the governing power of these two sovereigns, making him a public official of these tribes.

Updated Materials in Cherokee Election Dispute (Updated again on 7/12/2011)

 

From the Cherokee judiciary website (no.05):

From the Cherokee judiciary website (no.06):

1- Appeal and Challenge of 2011 General Election
1- Appeal Exhibits 1-4
1- Appeal Exhibit 5a
1- Appeal Exhibit 5b
1- Appeal Exhibit 5c
1- Appeal Exhibit 5d
1- Appeal Exhibit 5e
1- Appeal Exhibit 5f
1- Appeal Exhibit 8
2- Order
3- Amended Order
4- Motion to Seal
5- Motion to Compel
6- Notice of Document Subpoena
7- Order
8- Motion to Intervene
9- Motion to Dismiss Appeal and Challenege

Snoqualmie v. Ventura — Tribal Corruption and Tribal Prosecutor Misconduct

Here is the opinion:

Snoqualmie Indian Tribe v. Ventura

Federal Court Dismisses Effort to Block Rincon Eviction of Non-Indian (Alleged) Trespassers

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

DCT Order Dismissing Rogers-Dial Complaint

Rogers-Dial Motion for PI — Part 1

Rogers-Dial Motion for PI — Part 2

Rogers-Dial Motion for PI — Part 3

Rincon Motion to Dismiss

We posted the complaint here.

An Aboriginal Justice On The Supreme Court Of Canada? Why?

Soon, there will be two vacancies on the Supreme Court of Canada, as Justice Charron is retiring on August 30 and Justice Binnie will leave when a replacement is named.   As such, the Indigenous Bar Association recently asked Prime Minister Stephen Harper to consider appointing an aboriginal to the Supreme Court.  Of course, there has been some opposition to appointing someone because of their race to the highest court in Canada.  In fact, former Supreme Court Justice John Major (who found in favor of aboriginal interests only 20.6% – 6/29 times — one of the lowest ever) expressed his disdain for such a racially-based appointment.  Oddly enough, I happen to agree with Mr. Major, but for wildly different reasoning.

Continue reading

Divided Eighth Circuit Panel Affirms Use of Uncounseled Tribal Court Convictions in Federal Sentencing Enhancement

Here is the opinion in United States v. Cavanaugh: CA8 Opinion in Cavanaugh.

Briefs are here.

Cherokee Nation Election Dispute

Incumbent Chief Chad Smith has filed an appeal with the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court challenging the results of the recently held election, where at different times he has been declared the winner and the loser.

An article in today’s Tulsa World discussing the case can be found here.

Smith’s appeal to the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court can be found here.

Order of the Supreme Court setting the hearing in the case for Friday, July 8 can be found here.

New Pleading in Grand Canyon Skywalk Tribal Court Case

These come in haphazardly, so here’s the response in opposition to the Hualapai motion to dismiss the GCSD complaint in tribal court:

Response in Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss with P

Federal Govt. Effort to Enforce Trespass Law on Makah Allotment Sent to Tribal Court

Here are the materials in United States v. Ray (W.D. Wash.):

Ray Motion to Dismiss

US Opposition & Motion to Dismiss

Ray Reply

DCT Order Staying Ray Case

Federal Court Rejects Leech Lake Band Regulatory Authority over Otter Tail Power

Here are the materials in Otter Tail Power v. Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (D. Minn.):

Otter Tail Power Motion for TRO

Leech Lake Opposition

Otter Tail Reply

DCT Order Granting Otter Tail TRO