Here.
Sherry Treppa Op/Ed on the BIA and Tribal Membership Decisions
Here.
tribal membership
Nooksack Tribal Court Materials on Disenrollees Motion for Contempt
Here are the new materials in St. Germaine v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):
St Germain v. Kelly Motion for Order to Show Cause Re Contempt
St Germain v. Kelly Declaration of Leah Zapata
St. Germain v. Kelly Declaration of Agripina Smith
St. Germain v. Kelly Response to Plaintiffs Motion of Ord to Show Cause Re Contempt
Previous materials in this case are here and here.
Nooksack COA Rules against Nooksack Disenrollees
Here is the opinion in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack App.):
An excerpt:
This appeal is from the Tribal Com1’s order dismissing Appellants· second amended complaint. Appellants requested the Tribal Court enjoin members of the Nooksack Tribal Council from conducting disenrollment proceedings against them. Appellants are understandably gravely concemed at the prospect of disenrollment. We understand how serious the prospect of disenrollment is to Appellants. and how it impacts their cultural. social and political identity.
We also recognize that determining its own membership is a hallmark of a tribe’s sovereignty. It is one of the few aspects of tribal sovereignty that has withstood the relentless attempts by outside forces to tear down tribal self-governance, and one of the few aspects of tribal sovereignty that has not been eroded by the federal government.
Judges are not sages. We do not delude ourselves into believing we have the wisdom of a Solomon. It is not our role to insert ourselves into the Tribe’s political fray. or second guess the political judgments made by the Tribe’s elected leaders or its voting members, even if we believe those judgments unwise. We, like the trial court. are limited to resolving legal questions where authorized by the Tribe’s Constitution and laws.
The nature of this dispute requires us to find the delicate balance between Nooksack lawand politics keeping in mind the equal importance attached to both Tribal membership and Tribal sovereignty. The Tribe’s Constitution guides us in this difficult task. which we are duty bound to perform.
The Nooksack judiciary is not the only Nooksack governmental body whose decisions are tethered to the Tribe’s Constitution and laws. The decisions of its elected officials are as well. The trial judge expressed it well and it is worth repeating:
The Tribal Council members named in this Complaint hold an obligation to act in the best interests of the Nooksack Indian Tribe. Membership and enrollment decisions impact individual lives in the deepest possible ways and those decisions cannot be taken lightly. This Cotut recognizes the serious implications of this case and its decision on this motion and all the others that have preceded it. It is the solemn obligation of this Court to follow the law of the Nooksack Indian Tribe and it is the obligation of the Tribal Council to do the same.
Lower court materials are here.
Nooksack COA Briefing in Roberts v. Kelly Complete
Year-End News Coverage of Nooksack Disenrollments Controversy
Here.
An excerpt:
The 306 people fighting to stay on the Nooksack Indian Tribe’s membership rolls won a rare legal victory recently when Tribal Court Chief Judge Raquel Montoya-Lewis ruled that tribal leaders had violated their rights by denying them $250-per-person Christmas checks that were mailed to everyone else in the 2,000-member tribe.
But the ruling didn’t put any extra presents under anyone’s tree. While Montoya-Lewis ruled that it was illegal to deny the 306 the same treatment as other tribe members before their legal status is determined, she also decided that she had no legal authority to order Chairman Bob Kelly and his supporters on the tribal council to issue checks to anyone.
The episode was one more example of the difficulties that the 306 have faced during the past year, as they try to get courts to block the move to strip them of tribal membership under a process known as disenrollment.
Ninth Circuit Affirms Injunction against BIA in San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians Membership Dispute
Here are the materials in Alto v. Black:
San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians Brief
San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians Reply Brief
An excerpt:
In an appeal from the district court’s orders denying a motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction and denying motions to dismiss in an action concerning a dispute over membership in an Indian tribe, the panel affirmed in part, dismissed in part, and remanded. The San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians’ governing documents vested the United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, with ultimate authority over membership. The panel held that the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin preliminarily the enforcement of the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ order upholding the Band’s decision to disenroll descendants of Marcus Alto, Sr. from the Band, and that the Band was not a required party, because the claims underlying the preliminary injunction concern solely the propriety of final agency action. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the district court’s denial of the Band’s motion to dismiss the claims on which the injunction rests and the district court’s consequent refusal to dissolve the preliminary injunction. The panel remanded to allow the district court to clarify its order. Finally, the panel held that it lacked jurisdiction to review on interlocutory appeal the Band’s motion to dismiss the Altos’ other claims, on which the district court expressly deferred ruling.
Nooksack Issues TRO in Nooksack Tribal Christmas Checks Dispute with Proposed Disenrollees
Here are the new materials in St. Germaine v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):
St Germain v Kelly Brief in Support of TRO Relief
St Germain v Kelly Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Motion for TRO
St Germain v Kelly Order Granting Motion for TRO
An excerpt from the order:
Therefore, the Court finds that, at this preliminary TRO stage in this matter, the Defendants have violated the Nooksack Indian Tribe’s Constitution, Article IX and the Equal Protection clause of the Indian Civil Rights Act in passing Resolution 13-171 and acting upon it. The Court orders that the Defendants be enjoined from treating the proposed disenrollees differently from other tribal members with respect to the Christmas Support distribution. However, the Court finds that the Court cannot order specific relief requiring the expenditure of tribal funds. The Court hopes, however, that the Defendants will consider the implications of Resolution 13-171 and treat the Plaintiff proposed-disenrollees fairly, despite the fact that the Court is prohibited by the law from ordering them to do so.
Nooksack Tribal Councilwoman Michelle Roberts on Disenrollments
Federal Court Remands Cal. Valley Miwok Membership Issues to BIA
Here are the materials in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Jewell (D. D.C.):
56 Federal Motion for Summary J
83 Intervenor CVMT Response to US Motion
87 DCT Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
88 DCT Order on Cross-Motions for Summary J
An excerpt:
For the reasons discussed below, this Court concludes that the Assistant Secretary erred when he assumed that the Tribe’s membership is limited to five individuals and further assumed that the Tribe is governed by a duly constituted tribal council, thereby ignoring multiple administrative and court decisions that express concern about the nature of the Tribe’s governance. Therefore, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in so far as it seeks remand of the August 2011 Decision and deny the Federal Defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment.
Fourth Suit Challening Nooksack Tribal Member Disenrollments Fails
Here are the updated materials in St. Germaine v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):
St Germain v. Kelly TRO Motion
St Germain v. Kelly Declaration of Michelle Roberts
St Germain v. Kelly Declaration of Rudy St. Germain
St Germain v. Kelly Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining ORder
The complaint is here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.