Federal Court Rejects Jurisdiction over Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Internal Disputes

Here are the materials in Wright v. Langdeau (D.S.D.):

12 Motion for TRO

15 Langdeau Motion to Dismiss

15-4 Tribal Court Order

19 US Motion to Dismiss

20 DCT Order

Request to all Tribal Courts from California Forum

As Co-Chair of the Tribal Court-State Court Forum in California and Chief Judge of the Yurok Tribal Court, I would like to learn whether you are encountering any problems getting your tribal court protection orders enforced in California.  I am seeking your help because protection orders issued by tribal courts in California are not recognized or enforced unless they are entered into the DOJ California Restraining and Protective Orders System (CARPOS) through California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) by county law enforcement.  Because tribal courts in California do not have access to these statewide databases, we have had to develop workarounds. Despite VAWA and California law mandating full faith and credit for protection orders tribal courts have been registering their orders with the state courts in order to have them entered into the statewide DOJ databases.

If you have any examples of recent times when your tribal court protection orders have not been recognized or enforced by law enforcement, we would appreciate learning about these instances.  Please contact Pat Lenzi, forum member and Chief Judge of the Cedarville Rancheria Tribal Court, if you have any information you can share with us.  Judge Lenzi can be reached at  Lenzi.patricia@gmail.com

Judge Abby Abinanti
Co-Chair of the Tribal Court-State Court Forum

Nooksack 306 Allowed to Vote in Elections While IBIA Review is Pending

Belmont v Kelly Defendants’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Belmont v Kelly Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion for Preliminary Injuction

Belmont v Kelly Defendants’ Reply on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Belmont v Kelly Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Preliminary Injuction

Link to decision coverage in The Bellingham Herald here.

Nooksack Tribal Court has upheld the voting rights of over 300 Nooksack members facing disenrollment over a controversial ordinance passed in 2014.  While the federal review of that ordinance drags along, the Tribe requested that contested members be prevented from voting in Tribal elections.

Judge Susan Alexander wrote that the marked members were allowed to vote in 2014 when their enrollment was in doubt, but now the Tribe has unilaterally changed their minds to protect open seats in this year’s general election.

En Banc Petition in Kelsey v. Pope

Here:

Kelsey Petition for Rehearing en Banc

Panel decision and materials here.

New Complaint in Nooksack Disenrollment Saga

Here:

Belmont v Kelly II Complaint

Navajo Sues Interior over Tribal Court Funding

Here is the complaint in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of Interior (D. D.C.):

1 Complaint

1 Complaint

Sixth Circuit Rules in Favor of Little River Band in Kelsey v. Pope

Here is the opinion in Kelsey v. Pope:

59-2 Opinion

59-3 Judgment

Briefs here.

N.D. SCT Asserts Jurisdiction over Pipeline Lien on Fort Berthold Reservation

Here is the opinion in Arrow Midstream Holdings LLC v. 3 Bears Construction.

Appellant brief

Appellee brief

Reply brief

Odd result and seems to be overly formalist, given that the dispute arose on trust land, and the defendant is a state-chartered corporation owned by tribal members.

Seminole Nation Seeks District Judge and Supreme Court Justice

Here.

Dahlia Lithwick on Dollar General

Here