tribal courts

GAO Report on Tribal Justice Systems

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the report, and the highlights.

The description:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) reports from the latest available data that from 1992 to 2001 American Indians experienced violent crimes at more than twice the national rate. The Department of the Interior (DOI) and DOJ provide support to federally recognized tribes to address tribal justice issues. Upon request, GAO analyzed (1) the challenges facing tribes in adjudicating Indian country crimes and what federal efforts exist to help address these challenges and (2) the extent to which DOI and DOJ have collaborated with each other to support tribal justice systems. To do so, GAO interviewed tribal justice officials at 12 tribes in four states and reviewed laws, including the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010, to identify federal efforts to assist tribes. GAO selected these tribes based on court structure, among other factors. Although the results cannot be generalized, they provided useful perspectives about the challenges various tribes face in adjudicating crime in Indian country. GAO also compared DOI and DOJ’s efforts against practices that can help enhance and sustain collaboration among federal agencies and standards for internal control in the federal government.

The 12 tribes GAO visited reported several challenges in adjudicating crimes in Indian country, but multiple federal efforts exist to help address some of these challenges. For example, tribes only have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by Indian offenders in Indian country. Also, until the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 (the Act) was passed in July 2010, tribes could only sentence those found guilty to up to 1 year in jail per offense. Lacking further jurisdiction and sentencing authority, tribes rely on the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices (USAO) to prosecute crime in Indian country. Generally, the tribes GAO visited reported challenges in obtaining information on prosecutions from USAOs in a timely manner. For example, tribes reported they experienced delays in obtaining information when a USAO declines to prosecute a case; these delays may affect tribes’ ability to pursue prosecution in tribal court before their statute of limitations expires. USAOs are working with tribes to improve timely notification about declinations. DOI and the tribes GAO visited also reported overcrowding at tribal detention facilities. In some instances, tribes may have to contract with other detention facilities, which can be costly. Multiple federal efforts exist to help address these challenges. For example, the Act authorizes tribes to sentence convicted offenders for up to 3 years imprisonment under certain circumstances, and encourages DOJ to appoint tribal prosecutors to assist in prosecuting Indian country criminal matters in federal court. Federal efforts also include developing a pilot program to house, in federal prison, up to 100 Indian offenders convicted in tribal courts, given the shortage of tribal detention space. DOI, through its Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and DOJ components have taken action to coordinate their efforts to support tribal court and tribal detention programs; however, the two agencies could enhance their coordination on tribal courts by strengthening their information sharing efforts. BIA and DOJ have begun to establish task forces designed to facilitate coordination on tribal court and tribal detention initiatives, but more focus has been given to coordination on tribal detention programs. For example, at the program level, BIA and DOJ have established procedures to share information when DOJ plans to construct tribal detention facilities. This helps ensure that BIA is prepared to assume responsibility to staff and operate tribal detention facilities that DOJ constructs and in turn minimizes potential waste. In contrast, BIA and DOJ have not implemented similar information sharing and coordination mechanisms for their shared activities to enhance the capacity of tribal courts to administer justice. For example, BIA has not shared information with DOJ about its assessments of tribal courts. Further, both agencies provide training and technical assistance to tribal courts; however, they are unaware as to whether there could be unnecessary duplication. Developing mechanisms to identify and share information related to tribal courts could yield potential benefits in terms of minimizing unnecessary duplication and leveraging the expertise and capacities that each agency brings. GAO recommends that the Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney General direct the relevant DOI and DOJ programs to develop mechanisms to identify and share information related to tribal courts. DOI and DOJ concurred with our recommendation.

 

ABA Journal Article on Ethics Codes in Tribal Jurisdictions

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Thanks to M.O. for pointing this out.

From the ABAJ:

One of the notable trends in the legal ethics field over the past several years has been a gradual movement toward more uniformity in the substance and application of professional conduct rules.

There is little, if any, expectation that the states will fall into complete lockstep on how they apply ethics principles for lawyers and judges, or how they structure their disciplinary systems. But the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct and Model Code of Judicial Conduct have served as starting points for efforts to bring more uniformity to the field. The Model Rules, for instance, have been adopted in some form by every state except California.

But in Indian country — the lands occupied by more than 600 tribes recognized by the U.S. government as sovereign entities — that trend hasn’t caught on. And experts say it is unlikely that there will be much uniformity any time soon in the way that tribal courts address ethics and discipline issues for lawyers and judges.

“Tribes are all over the place on this,” says B.J. Jones, director of the Tribal Judicial Institute in the Northern Plains Indian Law Center at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks. “A lot of them do use the ABA Model Rules,” says Jones, who serves as chief judge for the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate and chief justice for the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, and is admitted to practice in a number of tribal courts. But, he says, “It’s hard to gauge what the most prevailing form of discipline is.”

The somewhat random pattern of ethics rules for lawyers and judges in Indian country reflects the nature of general rules and procedures in tribal courts, says W. Gregory Guedel, who chairs the Native American Concerns Committee in the ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, and other practitioners in the field.

“The thing that makes it both interesting, complex and a little maddening at times is that every tribe’s system is different,” says Guedel, chairs the Native American Legal Services Group at Foster Pepper in Seattle. “Some tribes have extremely well-developed legal codes and court procedures that are as intricate and broad as any non-tribal system. Other jurisdictions have just adopted the federal code or whatever is available because they won’t have the resources.”

Tribal jurisdictions vary greatly, says Paul Stenzel, an attorney in Shorewood, Wis., outside Milwaukee, who represents a number of tribes. “Some are handling a complete range of topics and cases that you would see in a state court, almost, with the exception of major felonies,” he says. “Smaller ones are doing very narrow dockets, maybe only hunting and fishing violations, maybe only adoptions or family law. And there’s everything in between.”

IMPETUS FOR CHANGE

Increasingly, there are good reasons for tribal courts to firm up conduct codes for lawyers and judges, and to identify ethics issues on which a more uniform approach might be beneficial.

Some of that impetus should come from passage of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 (PDF), which President Barack Obama signed into law on July 29. The act gives tribal courts and police more authority to deal with crimes committed in Indian country, and promises more federal money to help bolster tribal justice systems.

“The act gave a lot of people the thought that, ‘Let’s not stop there. Let’s continue and see what else we need to do,’ ” says Guedel. “There’s a lot of discussion in general about it.”

Economic considerations are another reason for tribal courts to take a harder look at their ethics rules for lawyers and judges. As some tribes have gained wealth — often in the form of casino revenue — their financial operations have become more complex and their commercial dealings with outside entities have grown.

“Private businesses are very afraid of the notion of a tribal court,” Guedel says. “Tribes have recognized that impression and have been trying to say, ‘This is a legitimate system. This is not just a kangaroo court.’ The adoption of the model codes in wide usage, which people understand inside and outside the tribal context, would be helpful in that regard. You would have a level playing field. A business that’s considering doing business with a particular tribe would say, ‘At least we’ve got an understandable way to resolve our differences.’ ”

Continue reading →

New Paper on the Tribal Law and Order Act

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Gideon Hart has posted his paper, “A Crisis in Indian Country: An Analysis of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010,” on SSRN. It was published in the Regent University Law Review.

The abstract:

Crime and violence have long been a serious problem in Indian Country. In recent years, though, the extraordinary levels of gang activity and high rates of sexual violence against Native American women have received a large amount of media attention. Responding to this problem, Congress passed the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010. Through this legislation, Congress seeks to lower the rates of crime in Indian Country, particularly with regard to crimes committed against Native American women; the Act significantly increases the resources and authority of federal prosecutors and agencies in Indian Country and increases the sentencing authority of tribal courts.

This Article considers the major provisions of this landmark Act and concludes that it is an important piece of legislation that could potentially have profound effects in many parts of Indian Country. Although the Act was widely supported, however, this Article argues it does not do enough and is instead only a short-term remedy to the problems facing Indian Country. The Article proposes several pieces of legislation that would provide long-term solutions, including increasing the sentencing authority of tribal courts and legislatively overturning the jurisdictional limitations imposed on tribal courts by the United States Supreme Court in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe. Both of these major reforms could be used as tools to increase the status and skill of tribal courts, eventually making them a much more equal third sovereign.

Ford Motor Credit v. Poitra — Fed. Court Refuses to Dismiss Tribal Court Jurisdiction Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials:

DCT Order Denying Motions

Ford Motor Motion for Summary J

Poitra Response and Motion to Dismiss

Ford Motor Reply

Alaska Supreme Court Recognizes Inherent Authority of Native Village of Tanana’s Tribal Court in ICWA Matters

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Alaska v. Native Village of Tanana.

And the materials:

Alaska Opening Brief

Tanana Brief

Alaska Reply Brief

Water Wheel v. LaRance Ninth Circuit Oral Argument Audio

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Navajo Nation Supreme Court Issues Omnibus Order in Massive DiscretionaryFund Fraud Cases

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Acothley v. Perry. (H/T Pechanga)

As you may recall, the Navajo Special Prosecutor filed more than 250 criminal cases in the Window Rock District Court a few months back, creating a logjam of complex criminal cases (our post here).

The court’s syllabus:

Acothley et al v. Perry, Opinion and Omnibus Order and Writ of Superintending Control. In this application for a Writ of Superintending Control, the Court denies Petitioners’ request for dismissal and disqualification of Judge Carol Perry and Judge T. J. Holgate of the Window Rock District Court and further, issues a writ requiring consolidation of co-conspirators into joint trials in the Discretionary Fund Cases.  (March 1, 2011)

Gabe Galanda on Arbitration and Indian Country Disputes

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Gabriel Galanda has published, “Arbitration in Indian Country: Taking the Long View,” in the Dispute Resolution Journal.

Here is a pdf: Arbitration in Indian Country

Eighth Circuit Affirms Use of “Indescribed” Tribal Court Convictions in Federal Sentencing

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in United States v. Jones, for a crime committed on the Red Lake Reservation:

CA8 Opinion in Jones

And the briefs:

Jones Opening Brief

USA Brief in Jones

An excerpt:

Here, the district court did not procedurally err in considering Jones’s tribal convictions. The Guidelines specifically permit a district court to consider tribal court convictions for the purpose of determining the adequacy of a defendant’s criminal history, see U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a)(2)(A), and this court has consistently approved tribal convictions as a permissible basis for departing upward from the advisory Guidelines range. See, e.g.,United States v. Cook, 615 F.3d 891, 893 (8th Cir.2010);United States v. Harlan, 368 F.3d 870, 874-75 (8th Cir.2004).

Update in Muscogee Nation Upheaval

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is a press release issued today by the Muscogee National Council titled, “Bureau of Indian Affairs Fails to Investigate Allegations of Tribal and Federal Funds.”

MCN NationalCouncil Press Release 3_2_11