Here: Sandia Cert Opp.
Petition and other materials here.
Sandia Pueblo Cert Opposition in Hoffman Jackpot Case
Here: Sandia Cert Opp.
Petition and other materials here.
tribal courts
Navajo Supreme Court Opinion Denying Pres. Shirley from Running for a Third Term at Navajo
Here is the opinion in Todacheene v. Shirley.
Troy Eid on the Tribal Law and Order Act
from the Denver Post:
WINDOW ROCK, Ariz. — After pressing for months, the chief criminal prosecutor for the Navajo Nation, Bernadine Martin, finally persuaded the U.S. Department of Justice to release its internal statistics on felony investigations. It turns out federal agents last year made just 28 arrests in sexual assault cases on an Indian reservation the size of West Virginia.
That’s an arrest rate in sexual assault cases of about 11 per 100,000 people. By comparison, Denver’s arrest rate in the same category in 2008 was 38 per 100,000. In other words, federal agents investigating sexual assaults on the Navajo Nation made less than one arrest for every three by Denver police.
This kind of unfairness prompted the Tribal Law and Order Act, sponsored by retiring Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and signed by President Obama last week.
Despite the good intentions of many fine public servants, the federal government isn’t getting the job done. Violent crimes on Indian reservations are two and a half times the national average, yet tribal lands are served by half the number of police as comparable communities.
Eighth Circuit Affirms Upward Departure from Sentencing Guidelines Based on Seven Prior Tribal Court Convictions
Here is the opinion in United States v. Cook.
The court notes on page 3 that the seven prior tribal court convictions “alone” were enough to justify the upward departure from the sentencing guidelines. Not sure how many, if any, of the tribal court convictions were counseled.
QEP (Questar) Federal Court Challenge to Tribal Banishment
Here are the materials so far in QEP v. Ute Indian Tribe (D. Utah):
Key Bank Consents to Navajo Court Jurisdiction in Lending Agreement
From the Navajo Times:
* * *
Shirley pointed to an unprecedented $60 million loan agreement with Cleveland-based Key Bank to fund construction of justice complexes in Crownpoint and Tuba City.
Shirley signed the agreement, which had previously been endorsed by the council, with KeyBank on June 24. This marks the first time that the tribe has made this kind of arrangement with a bank and assigned tax revenues to pay for it.
“This signing comes six years after discussions first began and fulfills our vision to see these needed facilities built on Navajoland to combat the rising crime rates,” Shirley said.
He noted that the bank had agreed to respect the tribe’s sovereignty, including a pledge to use the tribal courts in case of a dispute.
Shirley said KeyBank agreed to the provision after doing its own evaluation of tribal court rulings.
“KeyBank took the time to conduct research and determined that our Navajo legal system is strong and stable,” he said.
About 20 years ago, a similar study was done and determined that in cases involving a dispute between the tribe and an outside entity, the Navajo Nation Supreme Court ruled for the Navajo side in all but one instance. In the one case won by a non-Navajo plaintiff, the company was never able to collect the money it was owed.
Key Bank officials, however, determined that the decisions in the tribal court system went about half the time to the tribe and the other half to the non-Navajo entity.
Letters of Support for Tribal Law and Order Act
Tribal Amicus Briefs in Miranda v. Anchando/Nielson/Pascua Yaqui
Tribal Law and Order Act Details
TRIBAL LAW AND ORDER ACT SUMMARY
Between 2007 and 2010, Congress held 17 hearings on various aspects of violence on Indian lands from domestic and sexual violence against women and children to drug smuggling and gang activity. On June 23, 2010, the Senate passed the Tribal Law and Order Act, as an amendment to H.R. 725, by unanimous consent.
Indian reservations nationwide face violent crime rates more than 2.5 times the national rate. Some reservations face more than 20 times the national rate of violence. More than 1 in 3 American Indian and Alaska Native women will be raped in their lifetimes, and 2 in 5 will face domestic or partner violence. The crisis is the result of a broken and underfunded system of justice.
Federal laws limit the authority of Indian tribes to punish Indian offenders to no more than 1-year imprisonment, and force reservation residents to rely on Federal (and in some cases State) officials to investigate and prosecute violent crimes on Indian lands. However, over the past 5 years, Federal officials have declined to prosecute 50% of alleged violent crimes in Indian country, including 75% of alleged sex crimes against women and children.
Less than 3,000 Bureau of Indian Affairs and tribal police patrol more than 56 million acres of Indian lands. Foreign drug cartels are aware of the lack of police presence on Indian lands and are targeting some reservations to distribute and manufacture drugs.
The Tribal Law and Order Act takes a comprehensive approach at addressing these shortfalls by establishing accountability measures for Federal agencies responsible for investigating and prosecuting reservation crime, and by providing tribes with additional tools to combat crime locally.
Some major provisions include:
- Evidence sharing and declination data: Requires federal prosecutors to maintain data on criminal declinations in Indian country, and to share evidence to support prosecutions in tribal court
- Tribal Court sentencing: Increases tribal court authority from 1 to 3 years imprisonment where certain constitutional protections are met
- Federal Testimony: Requires Federal officials who work in Indian country to testify about information gained in the scope of their duties to support a prosecution in tribal court
- Improves transparency in Public Safety spending by the BIA, and requires greater consultation on the part of the BIA to tribal communities on matters affecting public safety and justice
- Increased sexual assault training and standardized protocols for handling sex crimes, interviewing witnesses, and handling evidence of domestic and sexual violence crimes in Indian country
- Authorizes Deputization of Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys to prosecute reservation crimes in Federal courts, and encourages Federal Courts to hold cases in Indian country
- Increases Deputizations of Tribal and State Police to Enforce Federal Law: Enhances Special Law Enforcement Commission program to deputize officers to enforce federal laws on Indian lands
- Authorizes the Drug Enforcement Agency to deputize tribal police to assist on reservation drug raids
- Increases recruitment and retention efforts for BIA and Tribal Police
- Expands training opportunities for BIA and Tribal police to receive training at State police academies, and tribal, state, and local colleges – where Federal law enforcement training standards are met.
- Tribal Police Access to Criminal History Records: Many tribal police have no access to criminal history records. The bill will provide tribal police greater access to criminal history databases that provide them with essential information when detaining or arresting a suspect.
- Programmatic Reauthorizations: The bill will reauthorize and improve existing programs designed to strengthen tribal courts, police departments, and corrections centers – as well as programs to prevent and treat alcohol and substance abuse, and improve opportunities for at-risk Indian youth
The bill has the support of the U.S. Departments of Justice and Interior, the National Congress of American Indians, Amnesty International, the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, the Episcopal Church, the Family Violence Prevention Fund, and many other tribal, state, and local governments and organizations.
Judge’s Guide to Tribal Civil Jurisdiction over Nonmembers
Sarah Krakoff has posted “Tribal Civil Judicial Jurisdiction over Nonmembers: A Practical Guide for Judges.”
Here is the abstract:
This article provides a summary of the law of tribal court civil jurisdiction over persons who are not members of the governing tribe (hereafter nonmembers) followed by an analysis of trends in the lower courts. It was written to respond to a consensus view at “The Next Great Generation of American Indian Law Judges” Conference at the University of Colorado Law School, January 2010, that a concise, practical, yet in-depth treatment of this subject would be useful to the judiciary as well as practitioners. The article traces the development of the Supreme Court’s common law of tribal civil judicial jurisdiction from 1959 through the present. Next, it surveys all published lower federal court decisions from 1997-2010. Lower courts have upheld exercises of tribal jurisdiction in several cases that fit well within the Supreme Court’s increasingly narrow parameters for exercises of tribal authority over nonmembers. Those contexts include: (1) claims arising directly from a nonmember’s consensual relationship with the tribe or tribal members, and (2) claims that involve nonmember conduct on tribal lands that either harms the land itself, or presents a challenge to the tribe’s ability to provide for peace and security for tribal members. Despite the emergence of some clarity in the law, it is apparent nonetheless how cumbersome the process of litigating tribal court cases against nonmembers has become. Nonmember defendants challenge even clear examples of tribal jurisdiction, resulting in delay, multiplication of expenses, and insecurity for the parties. A better sense of the Supreme Court’s boundaries for tribal jurisdiction might help to reduce the problems otherwise associated with the double-layer of review to which all tribal court cases involving nonmembers are subject.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.