Here: Program Administrator Position 2016
tribal courts
News Profile of Nooksack Firing of Tribal Judge
Fletcher & Singel on the Historical Basis for the Trust Relationship between the US and Indian Children
Fletcher & Singel have posted “Indian Children and the Federal Tribal Trust Relationship” on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
This article develops the history of the role of Indian children in the formation of the federal-tribal trust relationship and comes as constitutional challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) are now pending. We conclude the historical record demonstrates the core of the federal-tribal trust relationship is the welfare of Indian children and their relationship to Indian nations. The challenges to ICWA are based on legally and historically false assumptions about federal and state powers in relation to Indian children and the federal government’s trust relationship with Indian children.
Indian children have been a focus of federal Indian affairs at least since the Framing of the Constitution. The Founding Generation initially used Indian children as military and diplomatic pawns, and later undertook a duty of protection to Indian nations and, especially, Indian children. Dozens of Indian treaties memorialize and implement the federal government’s duty to Indian children. Sadly, the United States then catastrophically distorted that duty of protection by deviating from its constitution-based obligations well into the 20th century. It was during this Coercive Period that federal Indian law and policy largely became unmoored from the constitution.
The modern duty of protection, now characterized as a federal general trust relationship, is manifested in federal statutes such as ICWA and various self-determination acts that return self-governance to tribes and acknowledge the United States’ duty of protection to Indian children. The federal duty of protection of internal tribal sovereignty, which has been strongly linked to the welfare of Indian children since the Founding, is now as closely realized as it ever has been throughout American history. In the Self-Determination Era, modern federal laws, including ICWA, constitute a return of federal Indian law and policy to constitutional fidelity.
RFP for Sauk-Suiattle Tribal Court Prosecutor
Download request for proposals here.
New Materials in Nooksack Disenrollment/Election/Disbarment Disputes
Here are filings in a new case captioned Tageant v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):
Tageant v Kelly Pro Se Complaint
Tageant v Kelly Pro Se Declaration of Carmen Tageant in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injuction
Tageant v Kelly Pro Se Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Declaratory Judgment
Here are new materials in Belmont v. Kelly (Nooksack Ct. App.):
Belmont v Kelly Amended Notice of Appeal
Belmont v Kelly Defendant-Appellants’ Motion for Stay
Belmont v Kelly Order Dismissing Defendant-Appellants’ Appeal
Nooksack Appellate Court Orders Tribal Court Clerk to Accept Galanda Pro Se Complaint
Here is the order in Galanda v. Bernard:
Galanda v. Bernard Order Granting Petition for Writ of Mandamus
An excerpt:
Thus, we hereby order (1) that the Court Clerk of the Nooksack Tribal Court shall either accept and file Petitioners complaints and related motions or file an answer to the Petition for Writ of Mandamus with this Court on or before May 16th, 2016, and (2) that the NICS administrator serve a copy of the petition together with this order by mail on the Court Clerk.
The motion for the writ of mandamus is here.
The court clerk’s refusal to accept the complaint is here.
The complaint is here.
News Coverage of Nooksack Tribal Judge Removal
Nooksack Appellate Filings Seeking Mandamus Writ Ordering Tribe to Appoint Judge to Hear Disenrollment & Election Matters
Here are the new filings in Belmont v. Kelly (Nooksack Ct. App.):
Belmont v Kelly Michelle Roberts Pro Se Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Belmont v Kelly Pro Se Declaration of Michelle Roberts in Support of Motion for Writ of Mandamus
Prior filings here.
Oral Argument Transcript in United States v. Bryant (and Commentary)
Here.
Background materials here.
Quick commentary:
This was a dramatically less intense argument (reading from a cold transcript) than in Dollar General. Again, as in DG, much of the commentary about tribal courts depended on how much work Congress did in enacting the Indian Civil Rights Act. So long as the rights contained in that statute satisfy the Supreme Court, tribal court convictions may be used as prior convictions under 18 U.S.C.§ 117.
If that is the case, Justices on the Court concerned about the use of uncounseled tribal court convictions must wrestle with precedents (mainly Scott and Argersinger) that affirmed there is not an absolute right to counsel in misdemeanor convictions where imprisonment is possible but not imposed.
Again, reading from a cold transcript, I was shocked that Bryant’s counsel noted that Bryant was not indigent. (p. 36, line 10) Moreover, Bryant apparently waived his right to counsel, which happens much of the time in state and federal court where incarceration is not on the table. Bryant also apparently waived a claim that the tribal court convictions were invalid, putting him a somewhat similar position to Billy Jo Lara. Bryant’s counsel was left arguing that ICRA does not confer any “rights” at all as a mere federal statute, and so there is no right to counsel at all in tribal court. So then the only way I see Bryant prevailing is if the Court holds that ICRA is a dead letter, and that there really is no federally guaranteed right to counsel in tribal courts (which I guess would mean tribes can deny counsel if they so choose). That seems like a particularly difficult holding to garner four votes (which would be enough to affirm by 4-4 split). Moreover, it’s simply not the case — I am aware of no tribal court that refuses to allow counsel to appear for criminal defendants.
The Chief Justice mentioned the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers brief that strongly criticized tribal court convictions (p. 12, lines 1-4), but that gave the government’s attorney a chance to note that the federal habeas right is a meaningful remedy (much as GRIC did in its controversial letter).
News Profile of Nooksack Disenrollments (and others, too)
Here is “In Washington, the Nooksack 306 fight to stay in their tribe” from the High Country News.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.