Here:
tribal courts
Federal Suit to Stop Snoqualmie Tribe from Criminal Prosecution of Tribal Council Member
Here is the complaint in Ventura v. Snoqualmie Indian Tribe (W.D. Wash.): Ventura Complaint.
Supreme Court Denies Cert in API v. Sac and Fox
As expected, though one never knows with the tribal court jurisdiction cases, the Supreme Court denied cert in API v. Sac and Fox (order list here).
API was a non-Indian-owned business hired by a tribal group (or individual) to enter into a tribal governmental office to retrieve documents and perform other security-related tasks. The tribal court held it had jurisdiction under Montana 2 to adjudicate contract and tort claims relating to that activity. There probably isn’t a better fact pattern for a Montana 2 “political integrity” exception to Montana’s general rule.
Grant Christensen on Tribal Court Civil Jurisdiction
Grant Christensen has posted, “Creating Brightline Rules for Tribal Court Jurisdiction Over Non-Indians: The Case of Trespass to Real Property,” on SSRN (abstract only). It is forthcoming in the American Indian Law Review.
Here is the abstract:
The 2010 passage of the Tribal Law and Order Act will invest significantly more resources in tribal courts. As tribal courts expand, conflicts between sovereignties – tribal, state, and federal – are likely to occur with much greater frequency. Tribal court civil jurisdiction over non-Indians will be among the issues most frequently appealed into federal courts. I offer this piece to propose a new and novel solution; that tribal courts be extended civil jurisdiction in a piecemeal process that vests absolute tribal court jurisdiction over non-Indians for those civil offenses over which tribes have the greatest interest. This article takes one of the most common jurisdictional questions, tribal court jurisdiction over non-Indians in cases of trespass to land, and argues that a bright-line rule favoring tribal court jurisdiction in this instance is legally mandated, will pragmatically conserve judicial resources, and recognizes the broad tribal sovereignty recently reaffirmed by Congress.
U.S. v. Medearis — Tribal Search Warrant Valid under Federal Law
Here are the materials in this case that details the interaction of tribal (Rosebud Sioux, in this case) and federal criminal procedure rules, holding that FRCrimPro 41 is inapplicable to tribal law enforcement officers when investigating alleged violations of tribal criminal law.
SCOTUSBlog Petition of the Day: Miccosukee v. Kraus-Anderson
Here. Interesting petition, if for no other reason than the respondent supports the petition (!!!).
Title: Miccosukee Tribe v. Kraus-Anderson Construction Co.
Docket: 10-717
Issue(s): Whether an action to obtain recognition of an Indian tribal court judgment presents a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Certiorari-Stage Documents:
- Opinion below (11th Cir.)
- Petition for certiorari
- Respondent’s brief in support of petition for certiorari
ETA-the petition was listed as a petition to watch by SCOTUSblog on 1/20 because it will likely be considered by the Justices at their 1/21 conference.
Rogers-Dial v. Rincon Band Complaint
Interesting case, involving the right of a tribe to evict non-Indians from tribal lands. The complaint, with a tribal court opinion attachment, is here: Rogers-Dial Complaint & Motion for PI
Conn. Dram Shop Action against Mohegan Settles; Some Briefs Available
According to Indianz, the Mohegan Tribe settled this matter (VanStaen-Holland v. Lavigne), which was to be argued before the Connecticut Supreme Court today.
Some of the briefs are available, and worth reading:
U.S. v. Shavanaux — Government’s Brief on Appeal Where Indictment Dismissed Based on Reliance on Tribal Court Convictions
Interesting, and a case to watch. The government is attempting to prove a recidivist element of the crime (domestic violence) through use of two or more uncounseled tribal court convictions. Lower court materials here.
Here is the opening brief: US Appellant Brief in Shavanaux.
Navajo Nation Supreme Court Rejects Application for Attorney Fees for Party Challenging Election Reducing Size of Navajo Council
Very interesting opinion (available here).
The court’s syllabus:
In the attorney fee phase of this appeal of the Office of Hearing and Appeals’ dismissal, the Supreme Court invalidates the appropriation of public funds to pay attorney fees in this case and the use of a “grant agreement” for attorney payment; and places a moratorium on Navajo Nation discretionary spending through direct disbursement “financial assistance” programs until a statutory and regulatory basis is in place in compliance with Navajo Nation fiduciary laws.
You must be logged in to post a comment.