It’s a massive download (about 10 MB), but well worth the read:
Here is the order:
Also available on the Cherokee Nation Judiciary website.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
Here is the opinion:
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
We posted the complaint here.
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.
Here is the opinion in United States v. Cavanaugh: CA8 Opinion in Cavanaugh.
Briefs are here.
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.
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
You must be logged in to post a comment.