tribal courts

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. Kraus-Anderson Const. Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here: Miccosukee v Kraus-Anderson Cert Petition

Question presented:

This case presents an important question regarding the recognition and enforcement of Indian tribal court judgments in the federal courts. The question presented is whether an action to obtain recognition of a tribal court judgment presents a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, based on the common law and the federal character of Indian law, and whether the Eleventh Circuit was incorrect in its holding, which conflicts with other circuit court and Supreme Court precedents, that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the Miccosukee Tribal Court judgment in this case.

Lower court materials here.

Three Muscogee Supreme Court Justices Issue Opinion that Declares Opinion by Other Three Justices to be Void Ab Initio

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Recall that in Muscogee (Creek) Nation Council v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation Election Board that three Justices purported to dismiss a claim relating to tribal constitutional amendments posted here on Saturday. Now the three other sitting Justices have declared that opinion void ab initio (opinion here: Response to Opinion and Order).

 

Federal Court Holds Tribal Court Jurisdiction over Interstate Telecommunications Tariffs Preempted

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Sprint Communications v. Native American Telecom (D. S.D.):

DCT Order Granting Sprint PI

NAT Motion for Stay

Sprint Opposition to Motion for Stay

NAT Reply in Support of Motion to Stay

Sprint Motion for PI

NAT Opposition to Motion for PI

Sprint Reply in Support of Motion for PI

An excerpt:

Continue reading →

Muscogee Nation Council Challenge to Tribal Constitutional Amendment Thrown Out (without briefing)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

A year ago, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Council, along with a tribal member co-plaintiff, sued the Muscogee Election Board to challenge the adoption of several amendments to the tribal constitution, suing in the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. That Court held, over a dissent, that it was improper to bring suit under the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, and remanded the case to the district court. The district court judge recused, leaving a vacancy that was never filled by the Muscogee executive branch. The case languished, and now the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Supreme Court (3-2, with one Justice not participating) has dismissed the claims for lack of standing of the plaintiffs, apparently without notice to the parties or the benefit of briefing of either party on the questions of whether it could reassert jurisdiction or on the standing of the parties.

Here are the materials:

Muscogee Council & Robert Trepp Complaint // CV 09-211 Summons & Complaint signed

Supreme Court Order Remanding to DCT

District Court Judge Recusement

Supreme Court Order Dismissing Suit // Supreme Court Order Dismissing Suit complete opinion

Briefs in Cherokee Nation Redistricting Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The opinion in Cowan-Watts v. Smith is here.

Here are the available briefs:

Cowan-Watts Opening Brief

Principal Chief Reply

Council Reply

Cherokee Nation Supreme Court Strikes Down Redistricting Plan

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Cowan-Watts v. Smith: Cherokee Nation election case.

An excerpt:

The Court FINDS that the portion of the Legislative Act 22-10 purporting to create a district with a 22.8% deviation in representation is hereby determined to be unconstitutional. This Court further finds that the redistricting plan offered by Cowan-Watts is a constitutional alternative, but we do not adopt such measure because to do so would violate the Separation of Powers Doctrine. The final decision on redistricting is for the Cherokee Nation Tribal Council and they should act immediately to readdress the issue of redistricting by legislation.

Ray Austin & Howard Brown on the Navajo Preference in Employment Statute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Howard L. Brown & Hon. Raymond Austin will soon publish “The Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the Navajo Preference in Employment Act” in the New Mexico Law Review. Here is a sneak preview: Navajo Preference in EmploymentAct, 40 NMLR 17 (2010).

A very, very timely and important article, especially given the recent Ninth Circuit order and remand in EEOC v. Peabody Coal.

Prisoner Response Brief in Miranda v. Nielson (Ninth Circuit)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here: Responsive Brief in Miranda 111010

Parties Agree that Bustamante v. Valenzuela Ninth Circuit Appeal is Moot

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials:

Pascua Motion to Dismiss

Bustamante Consent

Opening brief is here, and lower court materials here.

Details here, from the Bustamante filing:

Respondents argue that because Mr. Bustamante has completed his sentence and been released from custody, and because Mr. Bustamante’s habeas petition challenges only the length of his sentence, his appeal should be dismissed on grounds of mootness. Upon review of Respondents’ motion and pertinent authorities, including North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244 (1971), Mr. Bustamante, by and through undersigned counsel, agrees with Respondents’ contention and does not oppose Respondents’ motion.

Navajo President Press Release on Firing of Navajo AG, Deputy AG, and Chief Justice

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here: President Shirley warns of econ. impact to firing AG, DAG, Ch