Amusement of the Day (cont.) — 1977 BIA Phoenix Area Office Enrollment Manual Illustrations

Yesterday, we covered tribal constitutions. Today, the political and bureaucratic complexity of enrollment decisions in cartoon form (we will conclude tomorrow):

Amusement of the Day — 1977 BIA Phoenix Area Office Enrollment Manual Illustrations

Apparently, in 1977 or so, the Phoenix Area Office decided to write a lengthy manual for tribal governments, instructing them on how to make enrollment decisions that met tribal constitutional muster. Suffice it to say the text is TL:DR, but the illustrations are awesome — and by awesome, I mean crazy — and by crazy, I mean Indian country crazy.

Tomorrow, how tribal governments make membership decisions….

Federal Court Dismisses Malicious Prosecution Suit against Blue Lake and Outside Counsel by Former Business Partner

Here are the materials in Acres Bonusing Inc v. Marston (N.D. Cal.):

1 Complaint

1-2 Tribal Court Opinion

29-1 Boutin Jones Defendants MTD

30-1 Boutin Jones Anti-SLAPP Motion

31 Janssen Malloy Defendants Anti-SLAPP Motion

32-1 Marston Defendants MTD

33 Janssen Malloy Defendants MTD

38 ABI Motion for Sanctions

40 JM Defendants Response to 38

43 ABI Response to BJ MTD

44 ABI Response to JM MTD

45 ABI Response to Marston MTD

46 ABI Reply in Support of Motion for Sanctions

47 JM Reply

48 BJ Reply

49 Marston Reply

50 ABI Response

50-1 Marston Anti-SLAPP Motion

52 Marston Response to ABI Motion to Strike

56 ABI Response to BJ Anti-SLAPP Motion

57 ABI Response to JM Anti-SLAPP Motion

58 ABI Response to Marston Anti-SLAPP Motion

59 JM Reply in Support of Anti-SLAPP Motion

60 BJ Reply in Support of Anti-SLAPP Motion

62 Marston Reply in Support of Anti-SLAPP Motion

65 DCT Order

Related cases here.

Federal Court Refuses to Dismiss Federal Indictment of Habitual D.V. Offender [Underlying Nooksack D.V. Convictions]

Here are the materials in United States v. Cline (W.D. Wash.):

1 Complaint

40 Motion to Dismiss

46 Response

47 Reply

50 Surreply

51 Sur-sur-reply

55 DCT Order

Pleadings (so far) in Insurance Company’s Effort to Avoid Navajo Nation District Court Jurisdiction

Here are the materials in Zurich American Insurance Company v. McPaul (D. Ariz.):

1 Complaint

1-2 Navajo Nation Complaint in Chinle D. Ct.

30 Zurich Motion for Summary J

32 Navajo Motion for Summary J

34 Zurich Response

35 Navajo Response

39 Zurich Reply

40 Navajo Reply

Fletcher on the Pandemic and Tribal Powers over Nonmembers

I posted a draft paper, “Indian Lives Matter: Pandemics and Inherent Tribal Powers,” on SSRN.

Here is the introduction to the paper:

America’s reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 is a microcosm of how Americans see the nation. It is a story of rugged individualism versus community needs. Many Americans insist on freedom to do as they please, rigorously pushing back on government. But in an environment where small numbers of individuals can easily transmit a deadly infection to others, creating the exponential increase in infections, rugged individualism is a terrible threat. Pandemics, luckily for humans, do not seem to occur all that frequently, but when they do occur, they can dramatically alter human history.

Indian people know all too well the impact of pandemics on human populations, having barely survived smallpox outbreaks and other diseases transmitted during the generations of early contact between themselves and Europeans. Indian people also suffered disproportionately from the last pandemic to hit the United States about a century ago. Some things have changed for the better for Indian people, namely tribal self-governance, but many things are not much better, including the public health situation of many Indian people.

Modern tribal governments navigate a tricky legal and political environment. While tribal governments have power to govern their own citizens, nonmembers are everywhere in Indian country, and the courts are skeptical of tribal authority over nonmembers. For example, after the Navajo Nation announced a 57-hour curfew for the weekend of April 10-13, 2020 (Easter weekend for many), the sheriff’s offices of Cibola and McKinley counties sent letters to the tribe insisting that the tribe refrain from citing nonmembers during the curfew, further insisting that nonmembers are governed more “fully” by the Governor of the State of New Mexico. Further, the fact that it is the county sheriff’s offices – and not counsel for the nonmembers – sending the letters is a deeply consequential signal to the tribal government. Of course, allowing nonmembers freedom to flout the tribe’s curfew defeats the purpose of the curfew. During a pandemic, the limitations on powers of tribal government could lead to tragedy.

This short essay is designed to lay down the argument favoring tribal regulatory powers over nonmembers in Indian country during a pandemic. It should be an easy argument, but federal Indian law makes it more complicated than it should be.

Here are some of the primary source documents noted in the paper:

Cibola county letter

McKinley County Sheriff Letter

The_Sacramento_Bee_Mon__Oct_28__1918_

Continue reading

Tribal Court Complaints re: Former St. Croix Chippewa Indians Tribal Council Members, Charged with Taking Tribal Casino Funds

Here are the complaints, each one captioned St. Croix Chippewa Indians v. [name]:

Bearheart, S

Bugg, CElmer, E

Emery, D

Larsen, L

Oustigoff, L

Oustigoff, N

Peterson, C

Taylor, J

Taylor, K

Taylor, L

Related post here.

Federal Court Dismisses FTCA/Section 1983 Claim against Feds for Actions of Fort Peck Tribal Court

Here are the materials in Leachman v. United States (D. Mont.):

FMC Corp. v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Cert Petition [Updated]

Here:

cert-petition.pdf

Questions presented:

1. Whether the Ninth Circuit correctly holds that tribal jurisdiction over nonmembers is established whenever a Montana exception is met, or whether, as the Seventh and Eighth Circuits have held, a court must also determine that the exercise of such jurisdiction stems from the tribe’s inherent authority to set conditions on entry, preserve tribal self-government, or control internal relations.

2. Whether the Ninth Circuit has construed the Montana exceptions to swallow the general rule that tribes lack jurisdiction over nonmembers.

Lower court materials here.

Update:

Brief in Opposition

Reply

US Invitation Brief

FMC Supplemental Brief