Here: Statement by LVD Tribal Council.
tribal courts
News Coverage of LVD Council Jailing
WATERSMEET — It has been a politically charged few weeks for the Lac Vieux Desert Tribe but things turned criminal on Wednesday.
All nine members of the tribal council were held in contempt of court after refusing to swear in the new chairman and treasurer and are now sitting in jail.
Judge Bradley Dakota’s ruling said the council must remain in jail until a majority agrees to swear in the new members.
Ruth Antone is an elder within the tribe and has lived on Lac Vieux Desert land all of her life.
She supports swearing in the new council but given the fact that two of her grandchildren are on the current council and are now in jail it’s been a difficult situation.
“I was at the hospital last night because my blood pressure was high and that’s because all that’s been going on,” she said. “I want it over with, I’m glad it’s over with soon I hope.”
The jailed council members released a statement through their attorney saying:
“We are being criminally punished for upholding the Constitution.”
LVD Council Habeas Petition — UPDATED with Exhibits
Here: LVD Council Habeas Petition.
Update (9/10/10): LVD Habeas Exhibits.
Update (9/11/10): LVD Habeas Exhibits Part 2
Amazing materials. Has this ever happened before? Wonder if one of these (a habeas petition on behalf of an entire tribal council) has ever been filed.
LVD Council Arrested?!?!?
WATERSMEET — Controversy continues to surround the Lac Vieux Desert Tribe and Wednesday police took action.
All nine tribal council members have been arrested for disobeying a court order by refusing to swear in the newly elected chairman and treasurer at last night’s tribal council meeting.
In July, tribal members protested the council’s decision not to step down after seven of the nine council members were voted out of office.
A third party judge ruled last month that the new chairman and treasurer must be sworn in and a new election would be held for the five general council positions.
The nine arrested council members have been transported off tribal property and are being held in the iron county jail without bond.
Water Wheel Tribal Court Jurisdiction Case Update
The Ninth Circuit denied Water Wheel’s motion to enjoin its eviction from tribal lands. Here are those materials:
CA9 Order on Emergency Injunction
And the briefing is complete. Here are the merits briefs (amicus briefs here):
Ninth Circuit Decides Tribal Court Civil Jurisdiction Case Involving Personal Injury Claim against Non-Indian Company
Here is the unpublished opinion in Town Pump Inc. v. LaPlante.
Here are the materials:
Recent Saginaw Chippewa Appellate Court Decisions on Tribal Membership
Forthcoming Scholarship on Indian Law Preemption
Jackie Gardina has posted “Federal Preemption: A Roadmap for the Application of Tribal Law in State Courts,” forthcoming in the American Indian Law Review. [Also available at BEPRESS.]
Here is the abstract:
This article contends that state courts are not necessarily free to apply state law when the state court is exercising concurrent adjudicative jurisdiction with tribal courts. Instead Indian law principles of pre-emption direct state courts to apply tribal law in certain cases. A guiding principle emerges: if a tribe has legislative jurisdiction over the dispute, tribal law ordinarily must be applied. In these instances, a state’s laws, including its choice of law rules, are preempted by federal common law because their application interferes with the federal government’s and the tribe’s interest in promoting tribal self-government, including the tribe’s ability to create laws and have those laws applied to disputes over which they have jurisdiction. This article differs in a significant respect from other articles addressing the application of tribal law in state courts. Some commentators have argued that state courts should incorporate tribal law into their traditional choice of law analysis. While this argument is certainly viable, it fails to recognize the primacy of tribal law and tribal interests in certain instances. The forum bias inherent in state choice of law rules provides limited protection to a tribe’s sovereignty interest. To the extent that the state’s choice of law rules can be bypassed, they should be.
Kirsty Gover on Comparative Tribal Constitutions
Kirsty Gover has published Comparative Tribal Constitutionalism: Membership Governance in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States in Law and Social Inquiry (Summer 2010) (pdf). Here is the abstract:
In the “self-governance era” of indigenous-state relations, there is a growing interest in the first-order question of tribal governance: who are the members of recognized tribes, and how are they chosen? Tribal constitutions contain formal tribal membership criteria but are not ordinarily in the public domain. This article presents findings from a study of the membership rules used in more than seven hundred current and historical tribal constitutions and codes. It offers a comparative analysis to explain significant differences between North American and Australasian tribal constitutionalism, particularly in the administration of descent, multiple membership, and disenrollment. It advances the argument that tribes self-constitute in ways that are more relational and less ascriptive than is suggested in current political theory and policy; that existing representations of tribes obscure nontribal expressions of indigeneity, on which tribes depend; and that these expressions should be officially supported in public law and policy.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.