Chief Tribal Judge – Attorney licensed to practice before the state courts of any state in the U.S. Tribal Court, management experience preferred. Duties primarily include acting as the Chief Tribal Judge for a variety of civil and criminal mattes in the context of Federal Indian Law and Tribal Law. Detailed knowledge of Federal Indian Law required. At least 10 years of post JD experience in the practice of law. Native American preference will apply. Salary is negotiable. Submit cover letter, resume and references to John Petoskey, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians, 2605 NW Bay Shore Drive, Suttons Bay, MI 49682, (231) 534-7279, fax (231) 534-7600 or email John Petoskey@gtbindians.com.
tribal courts
News Coverage on Criminal Charges in U.P. Illegal Gillnetting Case
From the Escanaba Daily Press:
ESCANABA – Sentences will be handed down within the next six weeks for two men arrested in connection with illegal gill netting on Big Bay de Noc earlier this month, according to Delta County District Court officials.
Kerry Todd Johnson, 27, Cooks, and Daryl John Tatrow, 48, Garden, each pleaded no contest to a charge of using illegal fishing devices. The misdemeanor carries a maximum punishment of 90 days in jail, $1,000 fine, and revocation of one’s fishing license for three years.
Tatrow, who appeared in district court Wednesday, also pleaded no contest to one count of attempted assaulting/resisting/obstructing a law enforcement officer for fleeing during his arrest. The charge carries a maximum sentencing of one year in jail and a $1,000 fine.
Johnson is scheduled to be sentenced in district court on Dec. 21. Tatrow will be sentenced on Jan. 4.
A third man arrested in connection with the alleged illegal gill-netting operation, will be charged in the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians Tribal Court for subsistence fishing without a license, according to officials from the Department of Natural Resources. His name was unavailable.
Michigan Case re: Tribal Court to Federal Court Removal and Remand
This case, Geroux v. Assurant, Inc., started as a tribal court complaint against two insurance companies seeking benefits for long-term disability, but was removed by the defendants to federal court. The district court remanded the case back to tribal court under the principles of the tribal court exhaustion doctrine.
Tribal Court Complaint against Assurant
Tribal Court Complaint against Union Security
Union Security Co. Answer and Counterclaim
Geroux Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim
Supreme Court Denies Cert in Harjo and Elliott
The order list is here, with the Harjo and Elliott cases listed on page 3.
Neither decision is a big surprise, as the Court grants cert in only a small percentage of cert petitions. The trademark suit against the Redskins will continue through different plaintiffs, but the laches argument that served to defeat the Harjo plaintiffs applies with virtually equal force to the new plaintiffs. (AP article here).
The Elliott case is a welcome relief, given that the Court seems to grant cert petitions filed by non-Indians against tribal jurisdiction almost randomly. Here, one suspects the fact that the Ninth Circuit merely was remanding to tribal court for a decision on the merits may have some importance, but the Court has previously granted cert in cases prior to a tribal court decision on the merits (see Strate). The takeaway from the Elliott cert petition denial is simply that one must continue to assume the Court continues to look at tribal jurisdiction cases carefully, but makes its certiorari decisions based on some utterly random calculus.
We surely would love to know if Justice Sotomayor weighed in on these cases in any way, and if so, how.
Idaho Federal Court Declines to Issue Order to Tribal Court in Criminal Case
In Chippewa v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Fort Hall Indian Reservation (D. Idaho), the court held that it has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a tribal court — Chippewa DCT Order
An excerpt:
Lara, Wheeler, and Enas clearly illustrate that tribal courts and courts of the United States each have separate jurisdiction to prosecute offenses against their respective sovereigns. A federal court does not have jurisdiction over a tribal court prosecution. Furthermore, a tribal court is not an inferior court to the federal court. Therefore, the Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the Tribal Court to either act on Chippewa’s motions or run three Tribal sentences concurrently with the now expired federal sentence.
Although the Court has not located any cases specifically holding that a federal court cannot issue a writ of mandamus to a Tribal Court, it is clear by analogy to cases addressing the issue in the context of state courts that it cannot. See, e.g., Craigo v. Hey, 624 F.Supp. 414, 416 (S.D.W.Va. 1985) (declining to issue a writ of mandamus finding that the Court had no original jurisdiction over a matter filed in state court and because it did not sit “as an appellate or supervisory tribunal” for the state court). See also Harris v. Department of Corrections, 426 F.Supp. 350 (D.C.Okl. 1977) (same; federal district courts do not sit to review actions taken in state court and do not have jurisdiction to compel a state or its officers to perform any duty owned to a plaintiff under state law). Accordingly, Chippewa’s Petition shall be dismissed.
MSU NALSA Tribal Court Event TOMORROW (Veterans Day)
Supreme Court Indian Law Petitions Set for This Week’s Conference
Two important cert petitions, Elliott v. White Mountain Apache Tribal Court (09-187) and Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc. (09-326) are set for this Friday’s Conference.
Our sense is that the Court will decline to hear either case, and there’s no word from SCOTUSBlog on these petitions yet. However, the Court’s interest is always heightened when a tribal court asserts jurisdiction over a non-Indian, as is the case in the Elliott case. And there appears to be a circuit split (on trademark grounds) in the Harjo case, with one side of the split supposedly involving an opinion from then-Third Circuit judge Alito. So there is a possibility in each case.
Here are the materials in Elliott:
And here are the materials in Harjo:
NALSA Panel Event: Tribal Judges
MSU NALSA is hosting a panel of tribal judges on Wednesday, November 11 at 4:30 pm in the Castle Board Room. Hon. Michael Petsokey, Hon. Holly Thompson and Hon. Matthew Fletcher will be talking.
Food and drink will be served.
Senate Report Accompanying Tribal Law and Order Act
Also, the prepared remarks of Associate A.G. Tom Perrelli (ASG.Listening Session Remarks) and Deputy A.G. David W. Ogden (DAG.Listening Session Remarks) from last week’s Minneapolis listening session.
Miigwetch to MBL for this!
No ICRA Habeas Right in Tribal Criminal Contempt Fine
Here is the magistrate’s report in Boyd v. Fort Peck Tribes, adopted by the judge a few days ago — Boyd v Fort Peck Tribes R&R
An excerpt:
On September 10, 2009, Petitioner Roberta Boyd filed this action seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 25 U.S.C. § 1303. Petitioner is proceeding pro se.
The Fort Peck Tribal Court ordered Petitioner to pay a $500.00 fine for criminal contempt. Pet. (doc. 1) at 2 ¶¶ 3-4. A writ of habeas corpus is available under 25 U.S.C. § 1303 “to test the legality of his detention by order of an Indian tribe.” The phrase “detention” has the same meaning as “custody” under28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254. Imposition of a fine does not constitute custody or detention. Moore v. Nelson, 270 F.3d 789, 791-92 (9th Cir.2001). The writ of habeas corpus is not available. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this action. It should be dismissed.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.