tribal courts

Here are the materials in Eagleman v. Rocky Boys’ Chippewa-Cree Tribal Business Committee (D. Mont.):

16 Motion to Dismiss

16-3 Eagleman Trial Court Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

16-4 Tribal Trial Court Order

16-5 Eagleman Tribal Appellate Brief

16-6 Tribal Appellate Court Opinion

33 Opposition

37 Reply

42 DCT Order

At the Supreme Court: Contentious Questions of Tribal Jurisdiction in Dollar General v. Choctaw Nation of Miss.

December 3, 2015Sarah M Donnelly

Link to Stanford Law article here.

Excerpt:

Let me give you an important example from this case, based on what Dollar General seems to think is its strongest historical argument. The company relies heavily on a couple of treaties with two Native nations in what is today Oklahoma—treaties that seem to strip civil jurisdiction over non-Natives from those tribes in particular. But those treaties are hardly representative of the history of even those two tribes, let alone all the histories of all of the over five hundred different federally recognized tribes. Soon after the handful of treaties referenced by Dollar General, the federal government began contemplating an Indian state in what was then Indian Territory, so it entered new treaties that explicitly granted this new Native government civil jurisdiction over non-members. Later in that century, Congress reversed course and, in creating the state of Oklahoma, abolished tribal courts there altogether. But only thirty years after that, in the 1930s, Congress changed policy again, and passed a law that permitted the re-establishment of tribal courts in Oklahoma. And this is just two Native nations over a span of eighty years. This single example, I think, suggests some of the challenges: we simply can’t distill centuries of change and contradiction into a single, unambiguous narrative.

Ed Gehres Preview of the Dollar General Argument

December 1, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “Argument preview: The future of tribal courts — the power to adjudicate civil torts involving non-Indians,” on SCOTUSblog.

Dollar General briefs and other materials are here.

Rosebud Sioux Tribe Supreme Court Decision in Tribal Chairman’s Removal Dispute

November 30, 2015November 30, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Scott v. Kindle:

Scott

An excerpt:

The case at bar is fraught with such risk. There is no doubt that the action of the Tribal Council in removing President Scott from office is of historical significance. As such, it ought not be too readily set aside, especially when no practical remedy is available. As noted above, a new Tribal president, William Kindle, has recently been elected and taken office. Mr. Scott, even if he could prevail on his substantive arguments, cannot be placed back in office.3 Under these circumstances, it’s best to avoid any unnecessary constitutional conflict.

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court of Appeals Decision in Tribal Redistricting Dispute

November 30, 2015November 30, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Woods v. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Council:

woods

An excerpt:

Despite the long and convoluted history of this case, much has been accomplished and both parties are to be commended for the positive results to date. As noted by Attorney Gunn in his letter of September 21, 2015, which is now part of the record in this case:

… the Tribal Council does not seek to undermine the rights and values enshrined in the Tribal Constitution or the Indian Civil Rights Act. To the contrary, the Tribal Council has honored and protected those rights by enacting redistricting legislation that ensures, and will continue to ensure, proportionate representation in the Tribal Council for all Tribal citizens.

There may still be differences of opinion in the details, but not on the overarching Tribal constitutional principle that mandates Tribal Council reapportionment. This, indeed, is worthy and noteworthy advance.

To be clear, while this case is over, the process of reapportionment and redistricting is not. Both sides realize that there is more to come, especially in regards to the Tribal Council’s commitment to taking a new tribal census in 2017 to guide redistricting for 2018 elections. See, e.g., Tribal Council Resolution 10-2015-CR. The implementation of this Tribal Council resolution may or may not lead to new litigation. If there is such litigation, the issue of Tribal Council sovereign immunity may be raised as a defense at that time. If it is, both the trial court and this Court shall rule upon it.