Here are the materials in Keim v. Harrah’s Operating Co. (S.D. Cal.):
tribal courts
New Scholarship on Tribal Jurisdiction and Intertribal and Intratribal Common Law
Jesse Sixkiller has published, “Procedural Fairness: Ensuring Tribal Civil Jurisdiction After Plains Commerce Bank,” in the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law.
Here is an excerpt from the conclusion:
Today, as this Note has demonstrated, there remains a clear divide between state and tribal civil jurisdiction powers. While states have come to enjoy a form of civil jurisdiction that can reach beyond their boundaries regardless of state citizenship, tribes remain confined to specific lands within their territory when it comes to jurisdiction over nonmembers.341 It has become more evident that the reasons are based on fairness to the nonmember parties, particularly to non-Indians.342 That stigma of unfairness must be addressed in order to ensure that jurisdiction over nonmembers is not similarly compromised on tribal lands, and possibly to enlarge tribal jurisdiction on nonmember fee lands.
Federal Court Dismisses Indictment in Indian Country Domestic Violence; Questions Constitutionality of Statute
Here is United States v. Cavanaugh (D. N.D.), where the court dismissed an indictment under the federal domestic violence by a habitual offender in Indian Country statute (18 U.S.C. 117), holding that the use of prior uncounseled tribal court D.V. convictions to establish the “habitual” element of the crime was unconstitutional. See my paper on how state courts should use, if at all, uncounseled tribal court convictions. The court rejected claims that the statute itself was unconstitutional under Morrison and Lopez.
Here are the materials:
Cavanaugh DCT Order on Motion to Dismiss
Latgawa Indian Tribe Sued
Here is a complaint filed in the federal court in Oregon, Airport Chevrolet v. Davis — Airport Chevrolet v Davis
An excerpt:
Plaintiff is an Oregon corporation authorized and licensed to do business within the State of Oregon. Defendants Richard L. Davis aka Richard Red Hawk Davis aka Red Hawk (“Davis”) and John Newkirk aka John Grey Eagle Newkirk (“Newkirk”) are residents of the State of Oregon. Defendant Confederated Tribes-Rogue-Table Rock & Associated tribes is a not-for-profit organization, organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Oregon; this organization conducts business under the name of the “Latgawa Indian Tribe.” These organizations will hereafter be collectively referred to as the “Tribe”.
Defendant Davis claims membership in the Tribe. Defendant Newkirk also claims membership in the Tribe, and also claims to be a “Latgawa Tribal Judge.” The Tribe purports to have established the Latgawa Indian Tribal Justice Court in Central Point, Oregon. Continue reading
News Profile of Barriers to Justice for Indian Women
From the Lincoln Journal Star:
She needs to call 911. She needs police to arrest the drunken boyfriend who assaulted her. She needs to go to the hospital, because she might be pregnant and he might be HIV-positive. And she needs a lawyer.
She could be one of so many women on Native reservations, where alcoholism and domestic violence often are rampant. In fact, Amnesty International reported in 2007 that Native women were 2 1/2 times more likely to be sexually assaulted.
Yet when a Native woman dials 911, a series of legal obstacles arise. Many stem from laws governing tribes — laws that can amplify the horror of sexual assault on Native reservations.
Among them is a 1950s federal regulation allowing government agencies, such as Indian Health Services, to avoid testifying in state and tribal courts.
The perceived benefit: Less courtroom involvement keeps agencies neutral.
But critics say information being withheld can include forensic evidence that could convict a rapist.
“So we have serial rapists that stalk our women,” said Charon Asetoyer, whose South Dakota-based group fights for Native women’s reproductive rights. Continue reading
Rosenberg v. Hualapai Indian Nation Cert Petition
Here is the cert petition in Rosenberg v. Hualapai Indian Nation (No. 09-742): Rosenberg Cert Petition.
No chance for a grant here. No circuit split. Nothing important for the SCT to decide, especially since they denied cert in the dram shop cases earlier this year. And the petition merely asks the Court to reverse itself, without really stating why. Oh, and the plaintiff had recourse to tribal court, so there isn’t a “no forum” problem.
Lower court materials are here.
The questions presented:
1. Does the sovereign immunity of an Indian tribe extend to off-Indian County (extra-territorial), tortuous conduct?
a. Does Congress, and Congress alone, have the authority to establish the boundaries of tribal sovereign immunity, a judicially-created doctrine, or may this Court define its outer boundaries, as this Court has suggested in Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 118 S.Ct. 1700 (1998)?
b. Is tribal sovereign immunity broader than the immunity provided to foreign sovereign nations?
2. Does a tribe waive its sovereign immunity by engaging in conduct that would lead a reasonable person to believe that he or she might have recourse in a court of competent jurisdiction for the negligence acts of the tribe?
Turtle Mountain Band Tribal Court Exhaustion Case
Here is the opinion in Auto Owners Insurance v. Azure (D. N.D.): Auto Owners Ins v Azure DCT Order.
An excerpt:
The Court finds the legal analysis and reasoning as set forth in Malaterre and Nielson is instructive. Auto Owners clearly had a consensual relationship with defendant Ken Davis when it issued a homeowner’s insurance policy to him. As a result, the first Montana exception applies and the tribal court retains jurisdiction over the conduct of Auto Owners. The Court further finds that Strate v. A-1 Contractors does not prevent tribal court exhaustion because in this dispute there is a colorable claim of tribal court jurisdiction such that exhaustion would not serve as a delay. Nielson, 2002 WL 417402, at *5. In accordance with the policies underlying the tribal exhaustion doctrine, the tribal court should be given the first opportunity to address the factual and legal issues presented. Exhaustion is “especially appropriate” to protect the operation of tribal government and avoid undermining the authority of the tribal court. See Bruce H. Lien Co. Three Affiliated Tribes, 93 F.3d 1412, 1420 (8th Cir. 1996).
Iowa Court of Appeals Decides Insurance Coverage Matter related to Sac and Fox Leadership Dispute
Here is the opinion in Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Attys. Process & Investigation Servs. An excerpt:
Attorneys Process & Investigation Services, Inc. (APIS), appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Scottsdale Insurance Company on its petition seeking a declaratory judgment that an insurance policy it had issued to APIS provided no coverage for acts alleged in a lawsuit filed by the Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa (Tribe) against APIS in tribal court. APIS also appeals the district court‟s dismissal of its counterclaims against Scottsdale. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the district court for further proceedings.
Profile on Criminal Justice at Colville
From the Wenatchee News:
NESPELEM — Charlene Bearcub looks out her office window in Nespelem and does not see justice.
A probation officer for the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Bearcub lost her son to a gun nearly five years ago.
A few blocks away, she can see the small, gray house where her oldest son, Ronald D. Thomas Jr., was shot and killed Jan. 12, 2005.
Next to her office sit two pale yellow prefabricated buildings which house Colville Tribal Court, where a tribal jury acquitted the teenager arrested and charged with her son’s homicide.
They were both 18, and best friends.
Even if he had been convicted, the boy would have spent only a year in jail for the crime, at most, because he was tried in tribal court. Under terms of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, no tribe may impose punishment greater than one year imprisonment. Serious crimes — like rape and murder — are supposed to fall to federal agents to investigate, and the U.S. Attorney for prosecution. But when the U.S. Attorney declines to prosecute, the only other option is tribal court.
Navajo District Court Decision Striking Down Law that Ousted Chairman Shirley
Here is the opinion from the Window Rock District Court in Office of the Navajo Nation President and Vice President v. Navajo Nation Council:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.