tribal courts

Bouschor Appeal to Sault Tribal Court Denied

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

NEWS RELEASE

SAULT STE. MARIE
TRIBE OF
CHIPPEWA INDIANS

*************************
Bouschor’s appeal to become candidate denied

SAULT STE. MARIE, MI – (March 7) – The Sault Tribe Court of Appeals issued a ruling today denying former tribal chairman Bernard Bouschor’s appeal on the election committee’s ruling that according to a specific tribal law, Mr. Bouschor and other defendants in an ongoing lawsuit are not eligible to be a candidate for elected office until such litigation has been resolved.

Continue reading →

Winnemucca Factional Dispute — Bank of America v. Bills

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The District Court in Bank of America v. Bills (and Wasson) sided with the Wasson faction in this matter to determine who had authority to access the Winnemucca bank accounts.

Here are the materials:

DCT Order

Continue reading →

Nooksack Drug Testing Challenge

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the Bellingham Herald:

Four members of the Nooksack Indian Tribe have filed suit in tribal court, challenging an election ordinance that requires tribal council candidates to pass a drug test before they can get on the ballot.

Charlotte Geleynse had hoped to be on the ballot for the March 15 election as a member of the “It’s Our Future” slate advocating sweeping change to tribal governance, but she refused to submit to the test.

Continue reading →

Empirical Research on Tribal Courts and Customary Law Posted on SSRN

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

My working paper, “Tribal Courts, the Indian Civil Rights Act, and Customary Law: Preliminary Data,” has been posted on SSRN. Chi-miigwetch to Alicia Ivory for all her hard work in helping with the research (you can see her contributions in the lengthy appendices at the end of the paper).

Here’s the abstract:

This study is an attempt to assess the validity of my theory that tribal courts do not apply “unusually difficult” laws in cases involving nonmembers. I theorized that in most cases (if not the vast, overwhelming majority), tribal courts apply a kind of “intertribal common law,” which consists of the application of tribal statutes that mirror federal and state statutes and the federal and state cases that interpret them.

Of the 120 cases involving an ICRA issue, tribal court judges applied federal and state case law as persuasive (and often controlling law) in 114 cases (95 percent). And, of the six cases in which the tribal court explicitly refused to apply federal or state case law, either the parties involved tribal members in a domestic dispute or else the tribal court held that its interpretation of the substantive provisions of ICRA were stronger or more protective of individual rights than would otherwise be available in parallel federal or state cases.

Plains Commerce Bank — Petitioner Brief and Joint Appendix

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

They are available at the Supreme Court Project website.

Spota v. Jackson (NY Ct. App.) — “Intruders” under NY Indian Law

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

In Spota v. Jackson, the New York Court of Appeals (Kaye, C.J.) held that state courts have no business deciding who is an “intruder” as contemplated by the New York Indian Law. This case involves the tribal power to exclude, arising ot of a dispute on an individual allotment of a member of the Unkechaug Indian Nation (or Poospatuck).

Lewis & Clark Tribal Economic Development Symposium

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From Lewis & Clark Law School:

Spring Symposium 2008 Schedule of Events

April 4, 2008 

8:00 – 8:30 a.m. Registration and Continental Breakfast

8:30 – 8:45 a.m. Welcoming Remarks

Dean Klonoff, Associate Dean Lisa LeSage

8:45 – 9:30 a.m. Keynote Address

Kevin Gover
Introductions by Professor Robert Miller

Continue reading →

Fort on ICWA and Michigan Tribal-State Court Comity

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

“A Review of the Indian Child Welfare Act, M.C.R. 2.615, and Tribal Court Jurisdiction in Michigan Family Law Cases,” by Kathyrn Fort.

From the Michigan Child Welfare Law Journal [scroll to page 11].

Navajo Nation Supreme Court Summer Clerkship Announcement

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Navajo Nation Supreme Court is seeking summer law clerks for summer 2008.  The Navajo Nation Supreme Court is a full-time court of last resort for the largest Indian tribe in the United States.  Its offices are located in Window Rock, Arizona, twenty-six miles north of Gallup, New Mexico.  Summer law clerks assist the justices of the Supreme Court in researching cases filed before the Court.  

            There are two paid positions, and, depending on space, at least one unpaid position for which law school credit can be earned.  Housing in the Window Rock area is provided for all positions.  The Navajo Nation Supreme Court adheres to the Navajo Preference in Employment Act in hiring law clerks.

Continue reading →

Cooter and Fikentscher on Tribal Codes

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Robert Cooter and Wolfgang Fikentscher have just published “American Indian Law Codes: Pragmatic Law and Tribal Identity” in the American Journal of Comparative Law. Here is the abstract:

The United States has recognized the power of American Indian tribes to make laws at least since 1934. Most tribes, however, did not write down many of their laws until the 1960s. Written laws have subsequently accumulated in well-organized codes, but scholars have not previously researched them. Using written materials and interviews with tribal officials, we describe the scope, motivation, and interpretation of tribal codes. With respect to scope, we found nine main types of codes that cover almost all fields of law over which tribes have jurisdiction. Few tribes have all nine types of codes. Tribes have internal and external motivations for codifying. Internal motivations include preserving culture, maintaining social order, and encouraging economic development. Financial incentives and demands for transparency supply outside motivation. Tribal officials interpret codes pragmatically, which resembles interpretation of codes in continental Europe. Finally, we note that law and justice sometimes require state or federal courts to use a tribal code to decide a case, but they seldom do so, which undermines tribal power and identity.