Here.
“Tribal Justice” Doc to be Shown in PBS’s POV in August
Here.
tribal courts
Ninth Circuit Affirms Qualified Immunity for BIA Officers Who Arrested Non-Indian Pursuant to Tribal Court Bench Warrant
Here is the unpublished memorandum in Roberts v. Elliott (In re Roberts Litigation).
An excerpt:
The Supreme Court has not addressed the interaction between Oliphant’s rejection of inherent criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians and a non-Indian’s ability to waive the question of personal jurisdiction before the tribal court in criminal matters. The extent to which a non-Indian may consent to tribal jurisdiction is not settled law. Smith v. Salish Kootenai Coll., 434 F.3d 1127, 1136–40 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (discussing non-tribal member consent to jurisdiction in civil suits).
Briefs:
Tenth Circuit Orders Exhaustion of Tribal Remedies over Trespass Claim Involving Nonmember Police Officers
Here is the opinion in Norton v. Ute Indian Tribe.
An excerpt:
We conclude that the district court erred in excusing the officers from exhaustion of tribal remedies with respect to the Tribe’s trespass claim, which alleges that the officers asserted superior authority over tribal lands and barred a tribal official from accessing the scene of the Murray shooting. Although we do not decide today whether the Tribal Court possesses jurisdiction over that claim, exhaustion is required unless tribal court jurisdiction is “automatically foreclosed.” Nat’l Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845, 855 (1985). The officers have not made this showing for the trespass claim because that claim at least arguably implicates the Tribe’s core sovereign rights to exclude and to self-govern. We further conclude that this claim is not barred by Hicks, which excused exhaustion based on a state’s overriding interest in investigating off-reservation offenses. Such an interest is not at play in this case. Murray was not suspected of committing any off-reservation violation, and the officers were not cross-deputized to enforce state law on the Reservation. However, we agree with the district court that the remaining Tribal Court claims are not subject to tribal jurisdiction and thus exhaustion was unnecessary.
Briefs:
Utah Municipalities Answer Brief
Lower court materials in Norton v. Ute Indian Tribe (D. Utah):
32 Motion for Preliminary Injunction
33 Utah Municipalities Response to 23
Federal Court Transfers Kewa Pueblo Prisoner’s ICRA Habeas Matter to District of Colorado
Here are the materials in Cheykaychi v. Geisen (D.N.M.):
Federal Court Dismisses Casino Patron Effort to Overrule Tribal Tort Claims Act Interpretation
Here are the materials in Wilson v. Umpqua Indian Development Corporation (D. Or.):
Kansas Appellate Court Orders Resentencing of Kickapoo Tribal Member
Here is the opinion in State v. Horselooking:
An excerpt:
Alvin P. Horselooking, Jr., appeals his sentence following his convictions of aggravated battery and driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). The district court assigned Horselooking a criminal history score of B based in part on his Kickapoo Nation tribal conviction of residential burglary, which the district court scored as a person felony for criminal history purposes. However, the Kickapoo Nation Tribal Code does not designate burglary as being either a felony or a misdemeanor offense. As his sole issue on appeal, Horselooking claims the district court erred when it scored his prior Kickapoo tribal conviction as a felony for criminal history purposes. Because we agree with Horselooking’s claim, we vacate his sentence and remand for the district court to resentence Horselooking using the correct criminal history score.
Federal Court Allows Discovery of Nooksack Tribal Court Judge
Here are the materials from Rabang v. Kelly (W.D. Wash.):
75 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Deny or Continue Defendant Dodge’s Motion for Summary Judgment
82 Defendant Chief Judge Raymond Dodge’s Opposition to Rule 56(D) Motion
84 Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion to Deny or Continue Dodge’s Motion for Summary Judgment
ICRA Habeas Petition Dismissed for Failure to Exhaust Tribal Remedies
Split Ninth Circuit Panel Finds Colorable Navajo Labor Commission Jurisdiction over Window Rock School District
Here is the opinion in Window Rock School District v. Nez.
An excerpt from the court’s syllabus:
The panel held that it was “colorable or plausible” that the tribal adjudicative forum, the Navajo Nation Labor Commission, had jurisdiction because the claims arose from conduct on tribal land over which the Navajo Nation had the right to exclude nonmembers, and the claims implicated no state criminal law enforcement interests. Well-established exhaustion principles therefore required that the tribal forum have the first opportunity to evaluate its own jurisdiction, including the nature of the state and tribal interests involved.
Briefs and lower court materials here.
Washington COA Dismisses Two Challenges to Swinomish Civil Forfeiture under Rule 19
Here is the unpublished opinion in Washington v. Director of the Dept. of Licensing.
An excerpt:
After losing her vehicle to the Swinomish Tribe in civil forfeiture, Washington filed this suit against the Department of Licensing and unnamed Swinomish police officers. The trial court dismissed the case under CR 19 for failure to join an indispensable party: the Tribe. We affirm.
Here are the briefs:
And here is the unpublished opinion in Scott v. Doe.
Briefs:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.