tribal courts

NAICJA/NCJFJC Free Webinar on Peacemaking, April 24

Kate Fort

Here: PM Announcement

Tribal Judge Profiles in The Federal Lawyer

Ann Tweedy

Lauryn Boston’s profile of Judge Mark Pouley is here.

Schuyler Tilson’s profile of Judge Mary Jo Hunter is here.

And my profile of Judge Ron Whitener is here.

Nooksack Crisis Update: IHS Reassumes Health Care Duties; NAICJA Acts against Tribal Judge; HUS Stops Evictions of Disenrollees

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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:

04-04-17 HUD Letter to Robert Kellly Jr

Update in Nooksack Tribe v. Zinke

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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

29 Nooksack Reply in Support of PI

Sprint’s Request for $690K in Attorney Fees to Accompany $29K Judgment against Native American Telecom Dropped by Court to $36K

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Sprint Communications v. Crow Creek Sioux Tribal Court (D.S.D.):

327 Motion for Atty Fees

337 Opposition

338 Reply

343 DCT Order

We posted on this case several times here, here, here, here, and here.

Federal Court Denies TRO in Matter it Already Dismissed under the Tribal Exhaustion Doctrine

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the new materials in Acres v. Blue Lake Rancheria (N.D. Cal.):

53 Motion for TRO

54 DCT Order Denying TRO

Prior posts here.

Navajo Sues Interior over Judiciary Funding

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Navajo Nation v. United States (D.D.C.):

1 Complaint

On the Minnesota SCT Rule 10 Proposed Revisions on Recognizing Tribal Court Orders and Judgments

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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.

Federal Court Dismisses Dispute over Nonmember Property Boundary Line Dispute on Ute Reservation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Austin v. Dietz (D. Utah):

12 Motion to Dismiss

12-2 Motion to Dismiss First Tribal Court Suit

12-3 Motion to Dismiss Second Tribal Court Suit

12-4 Tribal Court Panel Decision

13 Response

15 Reply

28 DCT Order

 

Motion for TRO Rejected in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. LaCounte

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. LaCounte (D. Mont.):

115 NAT Motion for TRO

123 Federal Response

127 Reply

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.