D.C. Circuit Briefs in Vann v. Kempthorne

Here are the briefs before the D.C. Circuit in the ongoing Cherokee Freedmen case.

cherokee nation-appellant-brief

vann-appellee-brief

cherokee-nation-reply-brief

Nord v. Kelly — Tribal Court Jurisdiction over Tort Claim Arising on State Highway

Here, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the DCT opinion rejecting the jurisdiction of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians tribal court over a tort claim arising out of an auto wreck on a state highway within the reservation. Judge Murphy concurred in a separate opinion, noting the distinction between the Red Lake Reservation, which has never been ceded, and the reservation of the Mandad, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation, where the Strate case arose.

Here are the materials:

CA8 Opinion

Appellant Brief

Appellee Brief

Reply Brief

Plains Commerce Bank: US Solicitor General’s Office to Participate in Oral Argument

The Court granted the government’s motion to argue the case as amicus curiae, diving the respondent’s argument time. Here is the docket sheet.

Tribal Court Exhaustion Case Involving the Colorado River Indian Tribe

The case is Water Wheel Camp v. Larance, out of the federal district court for the District of Arizona. The DCT denied a motion for a TRO from the non-Indian-owned complainant, who wanted to avoid continuing tribal court litigation over an attempt by CRIT to evict them.

Water Wheel Complaint [Includes two tribal court opinions as exhibits]

Motion for TRO [plus exhibits]

Opposition to TRO Motion

Reply Brief

DCT Order Denying TRO

Tribal appellate court decision:

crit_ct_of_appeals_opinion

Charles Wilkinson’s Remarks before the Federal Circuit

From the Federal Circuit Bar Journal (17 Fed. Circuit B.J. 235 (2008)):

Here’s an excerpt from “Indian Nations and the Federal Government: What Will Justice Require in the Future?”, a part of the 20th Annual Federal Circuit Judicial Conference:

The Court of Federal Claims has asked me to take a few minutes to step back, look out toward the horizon, and even dream a bit, about what the field of Indian law might be and I’m honored to oblige as best I can.

I believe that Indian tribes would receive the high justice they deserve from our courts if judges were to understand two legal doctrines in their full context and to understand them in two different ages. What I will propose is easy to state but difficult to apply. Yet it is realistic and can be done largely or completely by those judges able to invest the time.

I wish that judges could know tribal sovereignty and the trust relationship. I wish further that they could know them under the circumstances at treaty time and under the circumstances today. And I wish that they couldfeel them as well as know them. Lawyers and judges apply most legal rules mechanically. But some patches of law, because of their sensitive content, histories, and human faces, hold elevated places in the law. These are the terrains of the law that wefeel -free speech, due process in a murder trial, freedom from racial discrimination and others-the ones that touch a judge’s soul, the ones that make a judge put in the time, reflect, worry, and insist on pure justice, however that may cut in a particular case. Tribal sovereignty and the trust rightfully belong in that company, the law’s highest company.

***

Much of the law of tribal sovereignty comes back to tribal courts. This applies even to cases that do not directly involve tribal court jurisdiction. Should a federal court uphold a tribal tax, zoning ordinance, or fishing or hunting regulation? Non-Indians may be affected. The tribal courts inevitably must be considered because, if the tribe has the substantive lawmaking authority, then disputes will go to tribal court. Can the federal court trust the tribal court?

To a person, state and federal judges know both state and federal courts and how they work. It’s second-nature. But very few know much about tribal courts. Given that, it’s human nature for federal and state judges to be concerned about upholding the jurisdiction of courts that may be incompetent or unfair. This is important: Tribes own 58 million acres in the 48 continuous states-an area larger than Minnesota-and the tribal land base is steadily growing.

Vann v. Kempthorne D.C Circuit Oral Argument Scheduled

The oral argument is scheduled for May 6, 2008, before Circuit Judges Tatel, Garland, and Griffith.

Here is the order.

Training on Model Tribal Secured Transactions Act

From the Houston Chronicle:

BROOMFIELD, Colo. — American Indians who had trouble getting loans because of a disparity between tribal and state laws are learning about new legislation that could make the process easier.

Representatives from about a dozen tribes around the country are expected to attend a meeting in this Denver suburb Friday and Saturday to discuss a model tribal law first adopted by Montana’s Crow Tribe last month.

Banks have previously been reluctant to loan money to people on reservations because of the difficulty of going through tribal courts if the borrower defaults. Under the “Model Tribal Secured Transaction Act,” tribal laws would conform to state laws if a default case ends up in tribal court.

Continue reading

Long Family and Amici Briefs Supporting Respondent Filed

All the bottom side briefs in the Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co. have been filed and are available at the NARF/NCAI Supreme Court Project website here.

The Bank’s reply brief is due shortly.

US Amicus Brief in Plains Commerce Bank

It’s a good one!

Brief of United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondent

CSKT Chief Judge Moran Walks On

Judge Moran was a named party in Moran v. Council of the Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, 22 Indian L. Rep. 6149 (C.S. & K.T. Ct. App. 1995).

From KPAX:

Judge William Joseph Moran, Chief Justice of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Appellate Court and Chief Judge of the Tribal Court, died at his home Wednesday. He was 65 years old.

Continue reading