tribal courts

Eleventh Circuit Holds that Indian Tribes Cannot Sue to Enforce Tribal Court Judgment against Parties Located in the Same State

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Baffling.

Here is the opinion in Miccosukee Tribe v. Kraus-Anderson Constr. Co.: 11th Circuit Opinion

And here is the Tribe’s complaint, which includes the 166-page tribal court opinion as an attachment: Miccosukee Complaint w Tribal Court Decision

Here is the court’s summary of the case:

In 2004, Kraus-Anderson Construction Company (“Kraus-Anderson”) sued the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida (the “Tribe”) for breach of contract in the Miccosukee Tribal Court. The Tribe denied liability and counterclaimed, alleging that Kraus-Anderson was the breaching party. Following a trial on the merits, the Tribal Court denied Kraus-Anderson’s claims and, finding for the Tribe on its counterclaim, awarded the Tribe a judgment of $1.65 million. Kraus-Anderson petitioned the Tribe’s Business Council for leave to appeal the judgment to the Tribe’s General Council, which acts as the Tribal Court of Appeals. The Council denied Kraus-Anderson’s petition.

Kraus-Anderson refused to satisfy the Tribal Court’s judgment, so the Tribe brought suit against Kraus-Anderson in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida to enforce it. As an affirmative defense, Kraus-Anderson alleged that, in denying its petition for leave to appeal the Tribal Court’s judgment, the Business Council denied it due process of law, thereby rendering the judgment void. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court, relying on principles of comity, held the judgment unenforceable and granted Kraus-Anderson summary judgment. The Tribe now appeals. We reverse and remand the case to the district court with the instruction that it dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

I’m willing to bet a dollar that the real reason for the 11th Circuit’s decision is based entirely on the fact that the tribal council sits as the tribal appellate court.

If anyone has the appellate briefs, please send. 🙂

Navajo Supreme Court Decides Cases on the Removal of the President and the Reduction of the Tribal Council

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are these opinions:

NNSC OPVP v TNN Council OPINION

NNSC Initiative Committee to Reduce Council

Elena Kagan’s Remarks on the Navajo Judiciary in 2006

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Very nice. I imagine soon-to-be-Justice Kagan’s words will be quoted time and again by tribal advocates:

At about four minutes in she describes the Navajo Judiciary and caseload, and then the money quote (at about 4:25):

“And the Navajo Nation’s judicial system is distinguished by quality as well as by scope.”

She then quoted at length from the Harvard Project from 1999 in awarding honors to the Navajo judiciary, noting:

“[The judiciary’s] innovative legal system is independent, fair, responsive, and consistent with the Nation’s culture and traditions.”

Must have RealPlayer to view.

Download here (near the bottom), or here:

April 12, 2006 – Remarks – Opening of Navajo Supreme Court Session

Oglala Sioux Tribe Ordered to Arbitration in Service Agreement Dispute with Alltel (AT&T)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Alltel v. Oglala Sioux Tribe (D. S.D.):

Alltel Service Agreement

Tribal Court Order Denying Alltel Motion to Dismiss

Alltel Motion for PI

OST First Motion to Dismiss

OST Second Motion to Dismiss

DCT Order on Arbitration

Court Orders Exhaustion of Tribal Court Remedies in Speedy Trial Case at Oglala

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the available materials in Chipps v. Oglala Sioux Tribal Court (D. S.D.):

Chipps Habeas Petition

Chipps Speedy Trial Brief

Chipps DCT Order

SLAPP Lawsuits and the Tribal Court Exhaustion Doctrine

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

There’s an interesting exchange in a District of North Dakota case (Laducer v. DISH Network) involving an allegation that a non-Indian-owned business claim that a tribal court has no jurisdiction over it is actually a SLAPP lawsuit. A SLAPP lawsuit — strategic lawsuit against public participation — often is a frivolous countersuit by a corporate defendant against an individual plaintiff designed to bleed the plaintiff’s finances dry, effectively ending the original case. In this instance, it doesn’t appear that the facts support the claim.

But what if an Indian plaintiff brings a legitimate claim against a non-Indian in tribal court, and the defendant frivolously brings a federal court action to shut down the tribal court action? The non-Indian likely would not be subject to Rule 11 sanctions for filing a frivolous claim because the Supreme Court’s Montana jurisprudence is so negatively swayed against tribal jurisdiction that even easy cases are not easy (see the Water Wheel case). Any non-Indian defendant can bleed a tribal plaintiff dry.

Here are the materials:

Brian Laducer Motion to Dismiss

DISH Network Response

Brian Laducer Reply

Opening Brief in Water Wheel v. LaRance

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Very important case to watch.

Here: Tribal Court Brief

Lower and tribal court materials are here.

Poaching Case to Reach Sault Tribe Tribal Court

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the Escanaba Daily Press vie Pechanga:

ESCANABA – Three members of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, accused of illegal commercial fishing in Little Bay de Noc in 2009, will appear in tribal court this month, officials said.

Five tribal members and one Delta County man were arrested in early 2009 for allegedly illegally catching and selling walleye from Little Bay de Noc. The tribe has legal jurisdiction over the five tribal members, while Delta County has legal jurisdiction over the non-tribal member.

In March of this year, the tribe announced three of the accused tribal members were cited with approximately 100 civil infractions including illegally setting nets and selling thousands of pounds of walleye for profit.

The fish were allegedly being sold through a tribal commercial fishing operation consisting of two tribal members and a state-licensed wholesaler. Investigation continues regarding these three individuals who have not yet been officially charged.

According to Brenda Browning, a clerk at the tribal court in Sault Ste. Marie, the citations have been issued against the three tribal members accused of illegally poaching and selling walleye. Their pretrial hearings are scheduled in tribal court in mid-May. The court is not releasing their names because the case is in the pretrial phase, Browning explained Friday.

Browning also said these three cases are considered civil matters, which are being handled by Special Prosecutor Monica Lubiarz-Quigley.

When contacted Monday, Lubiarz-Quigley referred the Daily Press to the tribe’s general counselor, Thomas Dorwin. Dorwin did not return a call from the newspaper prior to press time.

The Daily Press also left a message with the tribe’s attorney, Aaron Schlehuber, on Monday.

Continue reading →

Navajo Nation Council Attacks on Navajo Judiciary?

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are three competing press releases from various branches of Navajo government (two of three, as Paul notes below):

Navajo Judiciary Committee on Court Reform

Navajo Nation Council Unhappy with TRO

Navajo President Opposes Election of Navajo Judges

Ninth Circuit Affirms Tribal Court Conviction

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The case is Eagle v. Yerington Paiute Tribe, and involves an interesting question: whether tribal prosecutors have to prove Indian status beyond a reasonable doubt. The answer appears to be no.

Opinion.

[Appellant opening brief unavailable.]

Yerington Paiute Brief

Eagle Reply Brief