Here is “Federal government to take over health care from Nooksack Tribe.” And:
03-27-17 IHS Reasssumption Letter to Robert Kellly Jr
NAICJA has requested that the Nooksack judge relinquish his membership from that organization:
03-27-17 NAICJA Letter to Raymond Dodge
HUD informed the tribe to stop evicting disenrollees:
Here are new materials in the case now captioned Nooksack Indian Tribe v. Zinke (W.D. Wash.):
14 – Motion of 271 Nooksack Tribal Members to Intervene
19 – Nooksack Tribe’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
22 Nooksack Opposition to Intervention
24 271 Members Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene
26 – Federal Defendants’ Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motion and Cross-Motion to Dismiss
Here are the new materials in Acres v. Blue Lake Rancheria (N.D. Cal.):
Prior posts here.
Here is the complaint in Navajo Nation v. United States (D.D.C.):
Link: Proposed Rule 10
The Minnesota Tribal Court State Court forum is petitioning the Minnesota Supreme Court for a new and improved rule on the recognition of tribal court judgments in state courts, known as Rule 10 of the Minnesota General Rules of Practice. The existing rule was adopted in 2003, and it fell far short of what advocates sought at the time. At the time, Professor Washburn was critical of the outcome as not being sufficiently respectful of tribal court judgments. In this article, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2935279, Washburn and Chloe Thompson explained that the rule was far less respectful than Arizona’s equivalent rule and speculated as to why Minnesota’s rule would be less respectful than Arizona’s. Washburn characterized Rule 10 as providing wide discretion and little guidance to Minnesota District Courts. According to a letter submitted on the rule, Professor Washburn finds the new proposed Rule 10 to be much improved and believes that it addresses most of the concerns about the previous rule. He urges the Minnesota Supreme Court to adopt the improved rule.
The comment period closes today. The next step is consideration of the petition by the Minnesota Supreme Court Advisory Committee on General Rules of Practice. A public hearing on the petition will be held by the advisory committee on March 31, 2017 at the Minnesota Judicial Center.
Here are the materials in Austin v. Dietz (D. Utah):
12-2 Motion to Dismiss First Tribal Court Suit
12-3 Motion to Dismiss Second Tribal Court Suit
12-4 Tribal Court Panel Decision
Here are the materials in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. LaCounte (D. Mont.):
147 DCT Order Denying Motion for TRO
An excerpt:
Negotiations concerning the operation of the two courts are ongoing. Interactions between the courts are, and will be, varied, continual, and context-specific. An order from the Court would prove an undesirable and perhaps unwieldy solution, particularly as opposed to a protocol negotiated by the parties. The Court especially is not the proper arbiter for the dispute while the parties continue to negotiate an MOU. An MOU would provide a set protocol that the Court could evaluate. The addition of an MOU to the factual record would aid the Court in coming to a more accurate, useful resolution to the issues presented.
Here is the complaint filed in the Pawnee Nation Tribal Court in Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma v. Eagle Road Oil LLC, et al.
On Friday, March 3, the Pawnee Nation sued 27 companies that operate wastewater disposal wells used in fracking operations in and near Pawnee, Oklahoma. The complaint alleges that the actions of the defendants have contributed to earthquakes and resulting damage to the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma, and it includes claims based on strict liability, negligence, private nuisance, and trespass. The Tribe seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
The Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review has published “What about the Children? Extending Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction to Crimes Against Children” by Alison Burton.
An excerpt:
As explained in Part IV, if Congress extends tribal criminal jurisdiction to non-Indian crimes against children, challenges to this legislation are un- likely to succeed as long as Congress explicitly enacts such jurisdiction through inherent tribal sovereignty.11 Non-Indian defendants’ United States Constitutional rights will be somewhat diminished in tribal courts. How- ever, extending tribal criminal jurisdiction is still justified because criminal defendants’ rights always vary according to the sovereign state in which the crime is committed.12 Furthermore, Part IV demonstrates how tribal crimi- nal jurisdiction can be analogized to court-martial,13 another arena in which the accused is not entitled to full constitutional protections. Just as court- martial is limited to members of the military who have commited crimes, tribal jurisdiction would be limited to non-Indians who have close ties to a tribe and have commited crimes in Indian country.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.