tribal courts

Report from Coalition for Juvenile Justice and Tribal Law and Policy Institute on Status Offense Disparities

Kate Fort

Here.

American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) young people are almost twice as likely to be petitioned to state court for skipping school, violating liquor laws, and engaging in other behaviors that are only illegal because of their age (often known as status offenses). Once involved with the state court system, they are less likely to be placed on probation and experience higher rates of detention and residential placements. Although we do not know the exact reasons for these disparities, recent efforts to better serve these youth have focused on responding to trauma and exposure to violence, better addressing substance abuse issues and mental health needs, addressing family needs, and offering more diversion programs and youth leadership development opportunities. This brief looks at the disparities faced in the state system by AI/AN youth who are charged with status offenses, the ability of both state and tribal systems to respond to status offenses, and federal funding levels to support efforts to better serve these youth.

RFP for Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe Judicial Services

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe

Judicial Services

The Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe is seeking proposals from persons in good standing with the Washington State Bar Association or graduates of an ABA accredited law school with Indian law experience who are interested serving as a Tribal Court Judge for the Sauk-Suiattle Tribal Court.

The Sauk-Suiattle Tribal Court convenes on the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Reservation located near Darrington, Washington one to two full days per month to hold civil and criminal trials and hearings.

A person serving as judge must also be available telephonically and/or electronically from time to time as occasionally the need arises to address requests by tribal law enforcement for search warrants and to issue temporary orders such as domestic violence protection orders, restraining orders, and emergency shelter care orders arising from Indian Child Welfare Act cases.

No particular format is required for submission of a proposal. Your proposal may propose an hourly, monthly or daily rate for providing judicial services. Persons willing to serve as a Judge for the Sauk-Suiattle Tribal Court should send a letter of interest or resume and proposal by July 30, 2015 to:

Stephanie Spiering

Court Clerk/Justice System Program Coordinator

Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe

5318 Chief Brown Lane

Darrington, WA 98241

(360) 436-0131

FAX (360) 436-1511

sspiering@sauk-suiattle.com

Federal Court Requires Financial Planning Company to Exhaust Tribal Remedies

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in United Planners Financial Services of America LLP v. Sac and Fox Nation (W.D. Okla.):

13 Housing Authority Motion to Dismiss

17 Sac & Fox Nation Motion to Dismiss

18 Response to 13

19 Housing Authority Reply

20 Response to 17

21 Sac & Fox Nation Reply

22 DCT Order

The complaint is here.

Tribal court materials are here.

 

Supreme Court Grants Cert in Dollar General

Kate Fort2 Comments

Despite the SG’s brief recommending otherwise–order list here.

Previous coverage here.

From the original cert petition by Dollar General:

In this case, a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit held that tribal courts do have that jurisdiction. Five judges dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc. The case accordingly presents the issue the Court left open in Hicks and the Question the Court granted certiorari to decide in Plains Commerce:

Whether Indian tribal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims against nonmembers, including as a means of regulating the conduct of nonmembers who enter into consensual relationships with a tribe or its members?

North Dakota SCT Reprimands Former Oglala Sioux Tribal Counsel for Making False Statement about Tribal Judge

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Federal Court Dismisses Town of Browning v. Sharp, States Town Has Tribal Court Remedy

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Town of Browning v. Sharp (D. Mont.):

71 Sharp 12b1 Motion to Dismiss

73 Sharp 12b6 Motion to Dismiss

75 Sharp 12b7 Motion to Dismiss

95 Town Response to 71

96 Town Response to 73

97 Town Response to 75

115 Sharp Reply in Support of 75

156 Magistrate Recommendation

162 DCT Order

An excerpt:

No adequate alternative forum exists to address the Town of Browning’s ex Parte Young action. The Blackfeet Tribal Court appears to represent an adequate alternative forum, however, to address the ongoing dispute between the Blackfeet Tribe and the Town of Browning. Indeed, in the Blackfeet Tribal Court, the Town of Browning can litigate against the Blackfeet Tribe directly rather than through an ex Parte Young action. Further, the Town of Browning appears to have moderated its position regarding the relief that it seeks. (Doc. 159). The Town of Browning appears to seek some reasonable compensation from the Blackfeet Tribe for use of the Town of Browning’s water main to deliver water to utility customers. The Town of Browning can seek and obtain this relief as a counterclaim in the breach of contract claim currently pending in the Blackfeet Tribal Court. Although the Town of Browning has challenged the Blackfeet Tribal Court’s jurisdiction over it on the grounds of sovereign immunity, the existence of a contract between the parties appears to confer jurisdiction on the Blackfeet Tribal Court. Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 565 (1981). An alternative forum exists for the Town of Browning to obtain the relief it seeks.

After weighing the factors listed in Rule 19(b), this Court has determined that this case should not proceed in the absence of the Blackfeet Tribe, a required party. The potential prejudice to the Blackfeet Tribe far outweighs the harm to the Town of Browning. The Blackfeet Tribal Court represents an alternative forum for the Town of Browning to address its underlying dispute with the Blackfeet Tribe.

Materials on the preliminary injunction stage of this litigation are here.

Larry Nesper on Tribal-State Court Jurisdiction in Wisconsin

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Larry Nesper has published “Ordering Legal Plurality: Allocating Jurisdiction in State and Tribal Courts in Wisconsin” in PoLar: Political and Legal Anthropology Review.

Here is the abstract:

This article examines how a Wisconsin statute passed in 2009 that authorized state court judges to transfer cases to American Indian tribal courts unfolded as a political and legal process that was both informed by and produced by fundamental conceptions of cultural difference. It calls specific attention to jurisprudential differences in the form of jury trials and peacemaking in figuring the differences between conceptions of tribal membership and state citizenship.

First Circuit Rejects Narragansett Interlocutory Appeal in Sovereign Immunity Matter (Waited Too Long to Appeal Denial of Motion for Reconsideration)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Luckerman v. Narragansett Indian Tribe:

CA1 Opinion

An excerpt:

Surveying the foregoing, a prior duty panel of this court cleared the underbrush by  dismissing as untimely any appeal from the denial of the Motion to Dismiss. Luckerman v. Narragansett Indian Tribe, No. 14-1106, Order at 1 (1st Cir. Aug. 29, 2014). That decision obviates the need to decide whether we would have had jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from the Motion to Dismiss. We do need to decide, though, whether we have appellate jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review the only order before us: the denial of the untimely Rule 59(e) Motion. For the reasons described below, we conclude that the denial of the Tribe’s untimely Rule 59(e) Motion does not qualify as a collateral order that we may review prior to the end of the litigation in the district court.

Briefs here.

ICWA/PL-280 Case out of Idaho Supreme Court

Kate Fort

Here.

Difficult case involving extreme domestic violence, a step-parent adoption, tribal court orders, state court orders, and interpretation of exclusive tribal jurisdiction under ICWA and PL-280. The challenge to state jurisdiction was brought by bio-father whose parental rights were terminated, which ultimately lead to the Court’s holding:

We find this reasoning to be persuasive and determine that Public Law 280 and Idaho Code section 67-5101 constitute an exception to ICWA’s exclusive jurisdiction mandate. Thus, we reject Doe’s argument that the magistrate court erred in exercising jurisdiction in this case.

New Scholarship on Tribal Court Jurisdiction in Alaska

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Alaska Law Review has published “Advancing Tribal Court Jurisdiction in Alaska.”

Here is the abstract:

Extensive case law already exists in Alaska on the jurisdiction of tribal courts over domestic relations cases, with one of the seminal cases—John v. Baker—establishing that Alaska tribes have jurisdiction even in the absence of Indian country. A common assumption, though, is that Alaska tribes do not have jurisdiction over criminal offenses. This Article argues that both under the logic of John v. Baker and the development of Indian law in the Lower 48, Alaska tribes already possess inherent jurisdiction over criminal offenses within their Native villages. With the gamut of social challenges facing Alaska Natives in rural Alaska, tribes need to be empowered to exercise this jurisdiction.