Here is the flyer for this training, scheduled for August 10-14, 2009 in Tulsa.
tribal courts
API v. Sac and Fox — Court Finds Tribal Court Jurisdiction over Nonmembers
Here is the district court order granting the tribe’s motion to dismiss a challenge to the tribal court’s jurisdiction in this long-running intratribal dispute — DCT Order on Cross Motions
The pleadings are here.
An excerpt:
API’s conduct imperiled the Tribe’s political integrity. In essence, API invaded the Tribe’s land to quell an intra-tribal governmental dispute. API argues this intra-tribal dispute was merely incidental to the raid. API contends that, if the court finds the raid imperiled the Tribe’s political integrity, any action taken by a non-member on tribal land during an intra-tribal governmental dispute would justify a court’s invocation of the second Montana exception. The court disagrees. API’s actions were made and intended to be a direct challenge to the Bear Council. API raided the Casino on behalf of the Walker Council, which was not the Tribe’s true governing authority. API conducted the raid pursuant to the Agreement, and the Agreement’s terms indicate the services API was expected to provide related directly to the Tribe’s governmental affairs. See Agreement at P I.2.A (stating API “shall perform services directly relating to the investigation of a takeover by dissidents at the [Casino] located on the Tribe’s reservation lands” and “[i]nvestigat[e] [. . .] individuals involved in the unlawful acts against the Tribal Government”). In other words, API was hired to assist in the resolution of an intra-tribal governmental dispute, which strikes at the heart of the secondMontana exception. The fact API believed it was operating with the consent of the Tribe’s governing authority, that is, the ousted Walker Council, has no effect on the application of this exception. In truth and in fact, API raided the Casino specifically to weaken one side of an intra-tribal governmental dispute, which happened to be the Bear Council, the Tribe’s true governing body. This is an act with potentially catastrophic consequences to the Tribe’s government. The court concludes this merits the application of the protective prong of the Montana exception and that the Tribal Court’s exercise of civil jurisdiction over API was proper.
Complaint of Former Chief Judge of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Dismissed
The case is Miner v. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (D. N.D.). Here are the materials:
Miner Motion for Summary Judgment
[no response]
Miner Response to Motion to Dismiss
Miner v Standing Rock DCT Opinion
CA9 Remands Nonmember Jurisdiction Case to Tribal Court
Here is the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Elliott v. White Mountain Apache Tribal Court. An excerpt:
We are sympathetic to Plaintiff’s concerns about defending her actions in an unfamiliar court system. But, because tribal court jurisdiction is plausible, principles of comity require us to give the tribal courts a full opportunity to determine their own jurisdiction in the first instance.
Here are the materials:
API v. Sac & Fox — Cross-Motions Pending
The case is ATTORNEY’S PROCESS AND INVESTIGATION SERVICES, INC. v. SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA.
After having been reopened (see our post here), post-tribal remedies exhaustion, the tribe filed a motion to dismiss, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. Both are pending after the court’s order to allow amendment of some of the pleadings.
API Resistance to Motion to Dismiss
Lozeau v. GEICO — State Court Jurisdiction over Reservation Tort
The question here is whether the Montana Supreme Court would invoke the doctrine of equitable tolling to toll the state statute of limitations where the plaintiff had first filed her tort claim in CSKT tribal court, then filed in state court. The court said yes, reversing a trial court order dismissing the claim.
Wisconsin Supreme Court Amends Tribal Court Comity/Transfer Rule
From the Wisconsin Law Journal:
Postjudgment proceedings involving modifications to child support, custody, and placement will soon be transferable from Wisconsin circuit courts to tribal courts without a hearing.
Pursuant to Rule 801.54, adopted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2008, and effective Jan. 1, 2009, courts have already had discretion to transfer any civil action if the court finds that concurrent jurisdiction is present.
But that rule requires notice and a hearing before transfer occurs.
At a May 1 administrative conference, the court adopted an amendment to the rule for family law cases that would dispense with a hearing if no party objects.
Seneca Tribal Court Declares New York Thruway Easement Void
Here is the opinion, relying on the federal Non-Intercourse Act for the most part — seneca-pm-court-opinion-on-ny-thruway
The highway at issue is located on the Cattaraugus Reservation.
U.S. v. Lente — On-Reservation Federal Criminal Sentencing
A badly divided panel of the Tenth Circuit vacated the sentence of an Indian woman convicted of vehicular homicide in United States v. Lente (unpublished). She was given a sentence of 216 months, more than four times the federal guidelines upper limit.
Of note, the lower court took judicial notice of her five tribal court convictions:
The court essentially gave seven reasons for the sentence: … 3) Ms. Lente had five Tribal Court convictions and three additional arrests—most of which involved the excessive use of alcohol and violence—and these convictions, along with her five separate probations, had failed to deter her from abusing alcohol and breaking the law….
NPR on Congressional Efforts to Stop Rape in Indian Country
From NPR (miigwetch to A.K.):
The federal government has recently announced plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to improve medical clinics, buy more rape kits and bolster the police response to what authorities say is an epidemic of rapes on Indian land.
The February stimulus bill injected $500 million into Indian Health Services, the agency that handles most medical needs for Native Americans, while the appropriations bill that passed in March is also adding funds. The March bill increases the budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs by $85 million to provide additional law enforcement on reservations.
Meanwhile, Congress is attempting to strengthen the authority of tribal police with a new bill that would grant Native American tribes greater police powers.
Advocates say it would be a sea change for tribes, which are largely dependent on the federal government when it comes to law enforcement on their lands.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.