Idaho SCT Enforces Coeur d’Alene Tribal Court Order against Nonmembers

Here is the opinion in Coeur d’Alene Tribe v. Johnson. (PDF)

An excerpt:

Here, the Johnsons assert that the Tribal Court is dominated by the Tribe. They point to the tribal law stating that the Tribe has jurisdiction over the river and to the amount of the fine imposed against them. As discussed above, the Johnsons have failed to show that the Tribe does not have jurisdiction over the bed of the St. Joe River adjoining their property. Further, while the fine was large, it was only one-fifth of that authorized by the tribal code. CTC 44-24.01 (authorizing a fine of $500 per day for unlicensed encroachments). We hold that the Johnsons have failed to show that the Tribal Court was biased. 

Further, the Johnsons had more than sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard in the Tribal Court. The record shows the Johnsons were informed of the proceedings on four occasions before default judgment was entered. Despite this, they elected to simply ignore the proceedings in Tribal Court. The Johnsons were not denied due process.

Differing Scholarly Opinions on the Ethics of Representing Tribes Engaged in Disenrollments

Here is George K. Komnenos, Tribal Advocates as Ministers of Justice: A Potentially Problematic Concept, 29 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 1079 (2016): GeorgeKKomnenosTribalAdvo

An excerpt:

In June 2015, the National Native American Bar Association (NNABA) adopted its first Ethics Opinion entitled Formal Duties of Tribal Court Advocates to Ensure Due Process Afforded to All Individuals Targeted for Disenrollment (“Opinion”). The Opinion is not intended to prescribe an overarching code of professional conduct for tribal advocates. On the contrary, the Opinion serves as a reminder to attorneys and Indian bar associations that “lawyers’ ethical obligations to their licensing jurisdictions do not stop at reservation boundaries.” The Opinion puts forward the notion that tribal advocates have a dual duty: they are bound not only to their individual clients, but to the Native American community at large. According to the Opinion, “[t]he responsibility of a tribal advocate differs from that of the usual advocate; his or her duty is to further justice in the greater Native American community, not merely to win his or her case.” Though this statement is made in the context of encouraging lawyers to be vigilant in defending their clients’ constitutional rights, it bears grave dangers.

And here is Nicole Russell, “To Further Justice in the Greater Native American Community”: Ethical Responsibilities of a Tribal Attorney in Disenrollment Disputes, 30 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 911 (2017):

TO FURTHER JUSTICE IN THE GREATER NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITY ETHICAL RESPONSIBI

An excerpt:

This Note will explore the ethical challenges faced by attorneys when representing member clients in two contexts. Part I will examine the generally heightened ethical obligations facing attorneys in their representations of tribal clients. This section will provide an analysis of procedural and ethical requirements, detail their variances, and point to recent attempts by tribal coalitions to develop a more coordinated code to guide nonmember representation. The discussion will necessarily involve the Model Rules of Professional Conduct(Model Rules) and their state derivations because many tribes have used these codes as the foundation for their own standards. Part II will examine what has been termed the tribal “disenrollment epidemic” and interrogate the premise that tribal advocates have a duty to distance themselves from disenrollment proceedings. Ultimately, this Note posits that not only are tribal advocates held to more– and sometimes higher–ethical standards than those put forth in the Model Rules, but that they are barred from representing tribes in many of the ongoing disenrollment proceedings which take place without the trappings of due process.

 

 

Commentary on Ak-Chin Same-Sex Marriage Case

Here’s a brief interview of me (Ann Tweedy) by Mark Brodie of KJZZ on the significance of the Ak-Chin same-sex marriage case. Previous coverage is here.

Eleventh Circuit Materials in Asker v. Seminole Tribe

Here:

Asker Opening Brief

Seminole Motion for Sanctions

Seminole Response Brief

Reply

Lower court materials here.

Materials (so far) in BP America v. Yerington Paiute Tribe

Here:

2 Motion for PI

26 Tribal Judge Motion to Dismiss

27 Tribe Motion to Dismiss

28-1 Tribal Court Motion to Dismiss

Nooksack: Federal Court Stays RICO Suit; IBIA Dismisses First IHS Reassumption Appeal

Here are materials in Rabang v. Kelly (W.D. Wash.):

6 – defendant-appellants’ opening brief

11 – plaintiff-appellees’ answering brief

124 non-parties nooksack tribe and certain tribal employees’ motion to quash non-party subpoenas

125 defendants kelly, cante and armstrong’s motion to strike notices of deposition and for protective order

127 plaintiffs’ response to defendants kelly, cante, armstrong’s motion to strike and non-party witnesses and nooksack tribe’s motion to quash

130 order

Here are materials in Nooksack Indian Tribe v. Director (IBIA):

3-28-17 nooksack v. ihs (ibia) motion of 271 nooksack members to intervene

4-19-17 nooksack v. ihs (ibia) nooksack indian tribe’s response in opposition to motion to intervene

6-30-17 nooksack v. ihs (ibia) order granting motion to intervene

10-4-17 nooksack v. ihs (ibia) joint status report

10-12-17 nooksack v. ihs (ibia) intervenor 271 nooksack tribal members’ status report

10-17-17 nooksack v. ihs (ibia) dismissal order

Federal Court Dismisses Effort to Overturn Fort Peck Appellate Court Probate Decision

Here are the materials in White Eagle-Payne v. Bemer (D. Mont.):

9 Motion to Dismiss

9-1 Ft. Peck Appellate Decision

14 Response

17 Magistrate Report

18 DCT Order

Update on Same Sex Marriage Case at Ak-Chin Community

Here:

Redacted Special Master Report

Ruling on Matter Under Advisement (1) final Pablo

Amerind Insurance Prevails over Blackfeet Housing

Here are the materials in Amerind Risk Management Corp. v. Blackfeet Housing Authority (D.N.M.):

42 dct order

28-1 amerind motion for summary j

33 response

36 amerind response

38 blackfeet reply

Prior post here.

Nooksack Update in Federal RICO Action

Here are new materials in Rabang v. Kelly (W.D. Wash.):

122 Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Summary Judgment Response

Ninth Circuit briefs in Rabang v. Kelly are here.