tribal courts – Page 88

New Scholarship on the Efficacy of Indigenous Community-Based Approaches to Restorative Justice in Alaska

March 5, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Brian Jarrett and Polly E. Hyslop have posted “Justice for All: An Indigenous Community-Based Approach to Restorative Justice in Alaska” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The current study reviews the comparative successes of two restorative justice programs in Alaska, namely, the Upper Tanana Wellness Program and the Circle Peacemaking Program in Kake, Alaska. In an analysis of the two case studies, the authors develop nine principles useful to those interested in developing restorative-justice programs. The authors recommend an Indigenous community-based approach consistent with practice in the field of Dispute Systems Design.

Written Order Enjoining Nooksack Disenrollments

February 27, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Order

Materials are here.

Western Sky Financial v. Jackson Cert Stage Materials

February 24, 2015April 10, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Western Sky v Jackson Cert Petition

Jackson Cert Opp Brief

Western Sky Cert Stage Reply

Questions presented:

I. Whether the validity of an arbitration clause is determined exclusively by the statutory requirements of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), as held by the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits – or by a common-law “reasonableness” test, as held by the Seventh Circuit below?

II. Whether a court may apply a state law defense in a manner that disfavors arbitration by voiding an entire arbitration clause merely because the contractually-designated arbitrator is unavailable, notwithstanding the FAA’s express directive to appoint a substitute arbitrator?

III. Whether the Seventh Circuit erroneously – and in conflict with the Second and Eighth Circuits – required a non-tribal-member’s physical entry onto the relevant Indian reservation in connection with a transaction with a tribal member before ordering tribal court exhaustion of judicial claims arising from the transaction?

Lower court materials here.

Nooksack Disenrollments Enjoined

February 24, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is a news article noting that Judge Doucet ruled from the bench.

An excerpt:

In a hearing Monday afternoon, Feb. 23, Nooksack Tribal Court Judge pro tem Randy Doucet held with the court’s previous rulings: Until tribal council has final word from the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, they may not disenroll anyone, said lawyers for the affected members. A reporter was not allowed in the courtroom as only five people for each side were admitted.

Briefs:

2-10-15 Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion To Enforce Injuction Orders

2-10-15 Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition To Defendants Notice of Compliance

2-19-15 Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Enforce Injunction Orders

2-20-15 Reply Re Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Enforce Injunction Orders

Call for Presentations for NAICJA Annual Conference

February 20, 2015Kate Fort

Here.

LA Times: “Tribes legally evicted Colorado River reservation tenant, judge rules”

February 19, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

We posted materials on this case here.

Two Federal Members Added To Michigan’s Tribal-State Judicial Forum

February 18, 2015Kate Fort

AUSA Jeff Davis and Magistrate Greeley. Order here.

Cynthia Ford Article about Evidence Rules in Montana Tribal Courts…

February 17, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

in this month’s edition of the Montana Lawyer (see page 14).

February_2015_Montana_Lawyer_new

Federal Court Rejects Nonmember’s Challenge to Colorado River Indian Tribe’s Jurisdiction; Reservation Boundaries Challenge Unresolved

February 17, 2015February 17, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here is the order in French v. Starr (D. Ariz.):

84 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Finding no impediment to this Court’s application of the doctrine of estoppel against Plaintiff, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is precluded by the terms of the Permit and by his conduct from asserting to this Court in the instant federal action that the lot he leased from CRIT was not within the boundaries of the Reservation to resist a determination that the Tribal Court had jurisdiction over the action brought by CRIT to evict Plaintiff and for damages. See Wendt, 2003 WL 21750676, at *5. The Court would also conclude that the Tribal Court properly applied the doctrine of estoppel to find its own jurisdiction in the underlying action, even though the lot may or may not be within the boundaries of the Reservation. The equitable considerations raised in this dispute— most notably, the policy of promoting tribal self-government and the development of tribal courts, see Iowa Mut. Ins. Co., 480 U.S. at 16-17, the recognition of a tribe’s inherent authority to exclude, see Water Wheel, 642 F.3d at 812-13, and the recognition of the government’s role as trustee of reservation land on behalf of the tribes, see Ruby, 588 F.2d at 704-05—weigh in favor of the Tribal Court’s application of the doctrine of estoppel to determine its jurisdiction in this matter.

And:

In concluding that this Plaintiff is estopped from asserting that the lot he leased from CRIT was not within the Reservation, the Court recognizes that the issue of the location of the Reservation’s boundary remains unresolved. Defendants rightly point out that, in the absence of estoppel, Plaintiff would have to overcome other obstacles in challenging CRIT’s title to the lot—none of which the Court need examine here— including whether the statute of limitations period has run on a challenge to the location of the Reservation’s boundary, whether the Secretary’s determination of the Reservation’s boundary is subject to collateral attack, and whether the United States and CRIT are indispensable parties to such a challenge under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19.

Briefs are here.

News coverage here.