Lexington Insurance Co. v. Suquamish Tribe Cert Petition

Here:

Lower court materials here. En banc materials here. District court materials here.

Nonmember Business Sues to Avoid Tribal Court Jurisdiction

Here are the pleadings so far in Mazaska Owecaso Otipi Financial Inc. v. Montileaux (D.S.D.):

“The Three Lives of Mamengwaa: Toward an Indigenous Canon of Construction” Article Now Published By Yale

Here.

Abstract:

For too long, tribal judiciaries have been an afterthought in the story of tribal self-determination. Until the last half-century, many tribal nations relied on federally administered courts or had no court systems at all. As tribal nations continue to develop their law-enforcement and police powers, tribal justice systems now play a critical role in tribal self-determination. But because tribal codes and constitutions tend to borrow extensively from federal and state law, tribal judges find themselves forced to apply and enforce laws that are poor cultural fits for Indian communities—an unfortunate reality that hampers tribal judges’ ability to regulate and improve tribal governance.

Even where tribal legislatures leave room for tribal judges to apply tribal customary law, the results are haphazard at best. This Article surveys a sample of tribal-court decisions that have used customary law to regulate tribal governance. Tribal judges have interpreted customary law when it is expressly incorporated into tribal positive law, they have looked to customary law to provide substantive rules of decision, and they have relied on customary law as an interpretive tool. Reliance on customary law is ascendant, but still rare, in tribal courts.

Recognizing that Indian country will continue to rely on borrowed laws, and aiming to empower tribal courts to advance tribal governance, this Article proposes that tribal judges adopt an Indigenous canon of construction of tribal laws. Elevating a thirty-year-old taxonomy first articulated by Chief Justice Irvin in Stepetin v. Nisqually Indian Community, this Article recommends that tribal judges seek out and apply tribal customary law in cases where (1) the relevant doctrine arose in federal or state statutes or common law; (2) the tribal nation has not explicitly adopted federal or state law on a given issue in writing; (3) written tribal law was adopted or shifted as a result of the colonizer’s pressure and interests; and (4) tribal custom is inconsistent with the written tribal law, most especially if the law violates the relational philosophies of that tribal nation. Tribal judiciaries experienced at applying tribal customary law will be better positioned to do justice in Indian country.

Eighth Circuit Affirms Cattle Impoundment Decision

Here is the opinion in Temple v. Mercier.

Briefs:

Temple Brief

Federal Brief

Tribal Brief

Reply

Lower court materials here.

Kekek Stark on Decolonizing Jurisdiction in Anishinaabe Tribal Courts

Kekek Jason Stark has published “Gwayak Ateg Onaakonigewi Dibenjigewin: Decolonizing Jurisdiction in Anishinaabe Tribal Courts” in the Nebraska Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

It is generally understood as a matter of federal Indian law that determinations of tribal law should properly be interpreted by tribal courts. This is because tribal courts do not always adhere to the same legal philosophy as their settler colonial counterparts. Many tribal courts subscribe to traditional law, which is an “essential source” of tribal jurisprudence. Anishinaabe communities have maintained a rich body of traditional tribal law since time immemorial. However, these customary law principles are only recently being included in modern-day Anishinaabe tribal court determinations. This Article builds upon the Anishinaabe law principles articulated in recent opinions and provides an overview of Anishinaabe tribal court jurisdictional cases in analyzing the efficacy of Anishinaabe customary law. Part I provides a brief introduction. Part II provides an overview of traditional Anishinaabe governance. Part III provides an overview of federal law that has been forced upon Anishinaabe communities in an attempt to further the colonizing project of assimilation. Part IV examines the principles of Anishinaabe jurisdiction. In doing so, this Article sets out traditional Anishinaabe law principles of jurisdiction as an example of how Anishinaabe Tribal Nations can define their own interpretations of law and jurisdiction. Part V analyzes how the principles of traditional Anishinaabe law are being balanced with the principles of federal Indian law under Montana and its progeny in Anishinaabe jurisdictional cases. The final Part shows that Anishinaabe tribal courts should be proactive and utilize Anishinaabe customary law in the recognition of their sovereignty apart from the federal courts’ articulations of tribal court jurisdiction. As provided in this Article, Anishinaabe tribal courts have the opportunity to define tribal jurisdiction from a tribal perspective in their tribal court opinions. For a tribal court to properly maintain its tribal character while adapting to the Anglo system of jurisprudence, it must build the system upon tribal concepts. In doing so, Anishinaabe tribal courts can ensure that their analysis remains Anishinaabe in character furthering tribal self-government and self-determination, and that its opinions are not being colonized by federal court determinations of tribal customary principles. In this way, Anishinaabe tribal courts will be able to fully implement the principles embedded in gwayak ateg onaakonigewi dibenjigewin.

Highly recommended!

Montana Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to Blackfeet Tribal Jurisdiction, Again Orders Exhaustion

Here are the materials in Kumar v. Schildt (D. Mont.):

1 Complaint

10 Motion to Dismiss

21 Opposition

25 Reply

27 DCT Order

Prior post here.

North Dakota Federal Court Rejects Tribal Court Jurisdiction over Enforcement of ROW Agreement on Allotment, Holding US Has Exclusive Authority

Here are the materials in WPX Energy Williston LLC v. Fettig (D.N.D.):

1 Complaint

1-8 MHA Nation Supreme Court Decision

8 Fettig Answer + Counterclaim

13 Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim

16 Response to 13

18 Motion for PI

22 Reply ISO 13

23 Tribal Response to 18

26 Reply ISO 18

30 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Yep, this is that cigarette case again.

Kekek Stark on Tribal Constitutions and Tribal Customs

Kekek Jason Stark has published “Exercising the Right of Self-Rule: Tribal Constitutions and Tribal Customary Law” in the Mitchell Hamline Law Review. PDF

Here is an excerpt:

In the context of the development and implementation of Tribal constitutions, Tribal Nations must ask themselves whether the federal government was playing a trick on Tribal Nations by imposing the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) and its corresponding constitutions and Anglo-American governing principles upon Indian country. Are these documents and corresponding governing principles actually “shit,” dressed up as “smart berries” under the guise of making Tribal Nations “wise” in the image of Anglo-American law? Ninety years after the enactment of the IRA, it is time Tribal Nations become wise and return to traditional constitutional principles based on Tribal customary law and unwritten, ancient Tribal constitutions.

As always with KJS, highly recommended.

Tenth Circuit Holds Thlopthlocco Tribal Town v. Wiley is Moot

Here is the unpublished opinion.

Briefs here.

Oil and Gas Company Sues BLM over Wind River Lease

Here is the complaint in Pioneer Oil and Gas v. Haaland (D. Wyo.):