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

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

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)

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

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

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.

Dollar General Response Brief to SG’s Invitation Brief

Here:

13-1496 Petr Supp Brief

SG Invitation brief here.

Cert stage briefs here.

NAICJA Tribal Trial Skills Training, May 22-23

NAICJA has some spots available for a free Tribal Trial Skills Training on May 22-23, 2015 in Albuquerque, NM. Interested tribal advocates or attorneys need to contact Nikki Borchardt Campbell at nikki@naicja.org for more information and to register. NAICJA will register remaining participants on a first-come-first-served basis.

Tribal Trial Skills DRAFT Training Agenda

Documentary on French v. Starr — Dispute over Tribal Jurisdiction at Colorado River Indian Reservation

Here is a documentary on CRIT’s eviction of squatters on the California side of its reservation. http://www.cctv-america.com/2015/05/08/the-guardians-of-the-mojave-desert. This issue was the subject of the lawsuit in French v. Starr which Turtle Talk covered. This documentary provides readers with the context behind that lawsuit

Eighth Circuit Decides Two Tribal Court Jurisdiction Matters Today

In both cases, the court concluded that the tribal courts did not have jurisdiction over tort claims brought against public schools in tribal court.

Here is the opinion in Belcourt Public School District v. Davis. Briefs are here.

Here is the opinion in Fort Yates Public School District No. 4 v. Murphy. Briefs are here.

Navajo Nation Supreme Court Chief Justice Herb Yazzie Statement re Retirement

Statement from Navajo Nation Chief Justice Herb Yazzie
“After forty years working in the legal profession for the Diné and with thirty years working in Navajo Nation government, with a stint as Attorney General and more recently as Chief Justice, I will be retiring. My retirement decision has long been urged by my family, relatives and community out of concern for my well-being. For the past ten years, I have been part of a Court that has had to make hard decisions often involving ruptures in relationships that, according to our deeply held principles of k’é, should properly be the responsibility of a better and more traditional system to patiently restore. I have decided now, with full consultation with my elders, to heed their advice.
Our society is a precious one, but one in which isolation and lack of self-esteem can harm our young ones their whole lives. I was such a young one, refusing to see value in myself, yet I survived though many of my generation did not make it and could not provide for the families they left behind. Somehow, I gained experience and knowledge, and was able to reconnect with my loved ones. It is much harder for a young person to reconnect after isolating himself or herself than to understand the value of relationships, k’é, from the beginning and be helped forward. Sometimes to learn this value, there must be a disciplinarian. I have tried to emphasize this value in my participation on the Supreme Court, Hashkééjí Nahatʹá, and by example.
We start with incomplete knowledge in a difficult environment. The difficulties in making ends meet is often unbearable enough and becoming separate from our value system, embodied by our language, can seem insignificant. We can become indoctrinated into believing such identity to be unimportant. Parents may even believe that they are protecting their child by affirming the unimportance of traditional knowledge that the parents, themselves, have not conveyed. To these parents, I would tell a story, that of a young Navajo serviceman troubled at putting on an army dress uniform with insignia of cavalry sabers, feeling a general sense of betraying himself, and unable to put into thought or words how to own his own future.
My folks always said – your experience, your knowledge, we appreciate you putting it to good use on behalf of the people. You now have attained these high leadership positions. But be aware that there will always be people who will insist on behaving as if the function of government is to destroy itself. In your position, don’t ever get down to their level, because you have to protect the concept of natanii. You have to maintain integrity for the people, and you should not by your words cause people to lose faith in our value system or respect for the value system. That’s not what a leader does. However, there have been a few times that, as part of the Supreme Court, I have had to call the government structure into question in order that the people have knowledge of your government, be engaged in the actions of government, and design and choose your future system of government that affirms who you are rather than merely imitate surrounding states.
The other day, someone told me that he understands and supports the Supreme Court. He remembered that when the Council declared that Fundamental Law and tradition is only what the Council decreed Fundamental Law to be, it was the Supreme Court that struck down that effort. It was through use of Fundamental Law that the courts were able to rein in corruption in past Councils and strike down enactments that provided cover for embezzlement of the discretionary fund. Concern for the traditional law of the people and the value system of the people have been the duty of the court system since the Navajo Nation began performing decision-making functions free of the burden of elections. It is my steadfast hope that the Judicial Branch may continue to be the disciplinarian and gatekeeper without interference.
The Court takes a comprehensive look at the laws and hears the explanation from those who wish to state their position. The Court cannot ignore other laws, and it cannot pick and choose which law applies when there is a set of laws that all bear on one subject. In the recent election cases, our courts affirmed the rights of the people to choose their leaders. Yet at the same time, it was our elders, our former leaders, who made it very specific, very strong, that you must be fluent in order to be President and Vice President. Our government specifically added the fluency qualification in 1999. We affirmed the validity of the language requirement in our president election laws. We have noted that the President is nihi nanitʹaʹi elected by all the Navajo People while all other offices are elected by communities in smaller areas. The President has the stature of representing the whole Navajo Nation to other sovereigns and the one who is the embodiment of the Nation. The law requires this embodiment to be bilingual. Don’t expect to be President without acquiring the qualification.
In closing, I would say that the recent proposed measure to remove me all concern decisions by the Supreme Court, not actions of an individual. The decisions were based on a thorough analysis of the law and declaration of how the law should be applied. Issuing court decisions that are thoroughly explained are manifestly judicial acts, that is what courts do. Our past governmental leaders have always said that when the Supreme Court makes a decision, that is the final decision. That law must be complied with no matter how some may view me as an individual. Seeking to use personal attack does not nullify the Court’s decision. I urge the Diné to learn from the actions and words of those who attack our way of life. Learn and protect our heritage. Turn the negative into positive.
I am truly grateful for being able to have worked with all of you. I have become acquainted with many of you personally and know that I have family all over our land. In my retirement, I am sure we will meet and enjoy the beauty of our life and the gifts that have been bestowed on us.
Coming from being a judge, my dream is that when we meet those who find themselves facing harshness of life, that we will help them, especially affirm to the Diné that because we are Diné, we can restore ourselves to the Beauty Way, and thereby also affirm all humanity who are universally linked, as neighbors, as surrogate family, and as partners in a mutual journey.
I’m sure we will see each other soon.