tribal courts

“Resisting Federal Courts on Tribal Jurisdiction” Draft Paper Available

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

My paper, “Resisting Federal Courts on Tribal Jurisdiction,” forthcoming in the University of Colorado Law Review‘s 2010 symposium issue, is available for download on SSRN.

The abstract (if you want to call it that):

This paper is part of a call for a paradigm-shifting re-examination by Indian tribes and Indian people about their place in the American constitutional structure. For tribal advocates to prevail in the federal judiciary, they must force federal judges to rethink everything they know about federal Indian law. There are at least two ways to do this. Tribal advocates and American Indian law scholars must first establish a baseline of knowledge and information about the realities of Indian Country in the 21st century. This work is nascent and ongoing, if not burgeoning, but frankly is far from enough. A second strategy must be a strategy itself, litigation with an eye toward presenting the best cases before the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court. As any litigator knows, facts win a case, not general truths.

In this paper, I argue a theory of tribal consent and resistance to federal government control embodied in the Supreme Court’s assertion of federal court supervision of tribal court civil jurisdiction. The pure federal common law cause of action expounded by the Supreme Court in 1985’s National Farmers Union v. Crow Tribe is ripe for reexamination, if not outright reversal. Tribes never consented to such a broad-based assertion of federal court jurisdiction, although tribes could consent if asked. I propose methods by which tribes and their appellate counsel can resist such jurisdiction, and perhaps in the same breath establish a meaningful recognition by the Supreme Court of the legitimacy of tribal justice systems.

Comments appreciated, as this is still a draft.

Navajo Office of Legislative Counsel Opinion on Pres. Shirley’s Effort to Run for a Third Term

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here it is: CLC0110

And here is news coverage of President Shirley’s announcement he’s running for a third term by relying on Dine Fundamental Law.

Race Discrimination Complaint against Tulalip Resort Casino Dismissed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Apparently, this is the fifth suit brought by this particular plaintiff, and the third one in federal court. The case is Parks v. Tulalip Resort Casino (W.D. Wash.). Our earlier post on the first case is here.

Here are the materials:

DCT Order Dismissing Parks Third Federal Suit

Tulalip Motion to Dismiss

Parks’ Response

Tulalip Reply

Daniel Heath Justice on Queer Indians and the Cherokee Nation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Daniel Heath Justice has published “Notes on a Theory of Anomaly” in GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies (article here: Notes Toward a Theory of Anomaly.

Here is the abstract:

Recent laws against same-sex marriage in the Cherokee Nation provide the backdrop for this analysis of alternative models of Cherokee sexual diversity. Rather than seek identifiable historical precedent that is largely unavailable in the historical record and vehemently denied by the predominantly Baptist Cherokee majority, this essay argues instead for a modern queer Cherokee aesthetic that is both responsive to the contemporary experiences of gender- and sexuality-variant Cherokees and inspired by the late Mississippian category of “anomaly” as a queer-inclusive tribal model for belonging.

Supreme Court Asks Solicitor General for Views on Kaltag ICWA Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Interesting development, and better than a grant, I suppose, but the Supreme Court has asked the Office of Solicitor General to express the federal government’s views in the Hogan v. Kaltag Tribal Council case — also known as a CVSG. Order list here.

It is extremely likely that the Court will decide whether or not to take the case based on the brief filed by the OSG.

Other materials here.

Little Traverse Tribal Court Opinions in Election Disputes

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Available here.

Amendment to House Tribal Law and Order Act

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here: TLO House Amendment

Pages 48-51 are particularly relevant to those following the consecutive sentences cases in Arizona and New Mexico.

New Scholarship on Sexual Predators in Indian Country

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Suzianne D. Painter-Thorne has posted her paper, “Tangled Up in Knots: How Continued Federal Jurisdiction over Sexual Predators on Indian Reservations Hobbles Effective Law Enforcement to the Detriment of Indian Women,” on BEPress.

Here is the abstract:

An Indian woman is two-and-a-half times more likely than any other American woman to be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. Nevertheless, because of a confusing tangle of jurisdictional rules, she is four times less likely to see her assailant arrested. She is even less likely to see him stand trial. Because jurisdiction over most sexual assaults is vested in the federal government, Indian tribes are not allowed to arrest or prosecute most of the suspects who commit sexual assaults on tribal lands. Consequently, tribal lands have become safe havens for sexual predators, who can commit their offenses with impunity and with little fear of prosecution.

This article proposes that federal jurisdiction prevents effective law enforcement on Indian reservations and leaves Indian women at a greater risk of sexual assault. While recently proposed congressional legislation seeks to improve reservation law enforcement, that effort largely fails to provide meaningful reform because it perpetuate the current law enforcement scheme that leaves Indian women vulnerable to sexual assault. Remote federal officials are not in the best position—geographically, politically, or culturally—to police reservation lands. Instead, Congress needs to reassess tribal jurisdiction, permitting tribes to arrest and prosecute suspects who commit sexual assaults on tribal lands. For too long, tribes have been left powerless to defend their own people against predators who enter reservation lands and commit unspeakable violence against tribal citizens. At the heart of sovereignty is the responsibility of government to protect its citizens. It is time to permit tribes to rise to this responsibility.

Ezra Rosser Book Review of Ray Austin’s Book on Navajo Common Law

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Ezra Rosser has posted Displacing the Judiciary: Customary Law and the Threat of a Defensive Tribal Council, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1591153, forthcoming 35 Am. Indian L. Rev. __ (2010) to SSRN.  The abstract is below:

Displacing the Judiciary: Customary Law and the Threat of a Defensive Tribal Council is a brief article framed as a book review of RAYMOND D. AUSTIN, NAVAJO COURTS AND NAVAJO COMMON LAW: A TRADITION OF TRIBAL SELF-GOVERNANCE (2009). Raymond Austin is a former Justice of the Navajo Supreme Court and his book is an important contribution to Indian law and tribal law scholarship that should be of interest to general readers. Austin shows the origins of Navajo customary law norms and how the Navajo court system has incorporated those norms into Navajo common law. Although the majority of the article is dedicated to reviewing NAVAJO COURTS AND NAVAJO COMMON LAW, I also discuss the an ongoing tribal power struggle and the related effort of the Navajo Tribal Council to block the Navajo courts from using customary law.

Two New Books by John Borrows from University of Toronto Press

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

John’s work is very thought-provoking, especially for American Indian law scholars and practitioners seeking to discover and perhaps utilize Indian common law, customs and traditions.

1. Canada’s Indigenous Constitution

Canada’s Indigenous Constitution reflects on the nature and sources of law in Canada, beginning with the conviction that the Canadian legal system has helped to engender the high level of wealth and security enjoyed by people across the country. However, longstanding disputes about the origins, legitimacy, and applicability of certain aspects of the legal system have led John Borrows to argue that Canada’s constitution is incomplete without a broader acceptance of Indigenous legal traditions.

With characteristic richness and eloquence, John Borrows explores legal traditions, the role of governments and courts, and the prospect of a multi-juridical legal culture, all with a view to understanding and improving legal processes in Canada. He discusses the place of individuals, families, and communities in recovering and extending the role of Indigenous law within both Indigenous communities and Canadian society more broadly.

This is a major work by one of Canada’s leading legal scholars, and an essential companion to Drawing Out Law: A Spirit’s Guide.

2. Drawing Out Law: A Spirits’ Guide

The Anishinabek Nation’s legal traditions are deeply embedded in many aspects of customary life. In Drawing Out Law, John Borrows (Kegedonce) skillfully juxtaposes Canadian legal policy and practice with the more broadly defined Anishinabek perception of law as it applies to community life, nature, and individuals.

This innovative work combines fictional and non-fictional elements in a series of connected short stories that symbolize different ways of Anishinabek engagement with the world. Drawing on oral traditions, pictographic scrolls, dreams, common law case analysis, and philosophical reflection, Borrows’ narrative explores issues of pressing importance to the future of indigenous law and offers readers new ways to think about the direction of Canadian law.

Shedding light on Canadian law and policy as they relate to Indigenous peoples,Drawing Out Law illustrates past and present moral agency of Indigenous peoples and their approaches to the law and calls for the renewal of ancient Ojibway teaching in contemporary circumstances.

This is a major work by one of Canada’s leading legal scholars, and an essential companion to Canada’s Indigenous Constitution.

Continue reading →