Latest Legal Developments in California ICWA Case

From the docket:

The writ of supersedeas was denied. Here.

The application to transfer the case out of the court of appeals and directly to the California Supreme Court was also denied. Here.

The underlying appeal against the placement order remains open in the California court of appeals. Here.

What is a writ of supersedeas? It’s what California still calls a stay of proceedings. A writ of supersedeas is defined in California’s Rules of Court here. Under rule 8.824, a writ of supersedeas is a stay of a judgment or order pending appeal. The petition for the writ must bear the same title (or name) as the appeal (hence a lot of confusion). In this case, the petition for the writ was filed to in an attempt to stop the transfer placement to Utah while the California court of appeals hears the foster parents’ appeal of the March 8th placement order. The court of appeals denied the petition for the writ of supersedeas on March 18. The first time this case went up on appeal, the appeal process took nine months from filing to opinion.

In addition, the California Rules of Court allow for a transfer of a case pending in the court of appeals to the California Supreme Court. Rule 8.552 allows a party to petition for the transfer, but the case must present “an issue of great public importance that the Supreme Court must promptly resolve.” in order for the transfer to be granted.

Tl;dr? The case is ongoing, it will stay in the California court of appeals for now, but the child will not be moved back to California during the pendency of the appeal.

 

Alaska SCT Recognizes Inherent Authority of Tribal Court to Enforce Child Support Orders Against Non-Member Parents

From Justice Fabe’s opinion:

This case, in contrast, requires that we decide whether tribal courts’ inherent, non-territorial subject matter jurisdiction does in fact extend to the adjudication of the child support rights and obligations of nonmember parents of children who are members or eligible for membership. We hold that because tribes’ inherent authority over child support stems from their power over family law matters concerning the welfare of Indian children — an area of law that is integral to tribal self-governance — the basis and limits of that authority are tied to the child rather than the parent.

Two Justices joined in a separate concurring opinion, which reads more like a dissent:

Today the court affirms those legal rulings and the associated injunctive relief, and I join that part of its decision. But the court unnecessarily moves further and reaches out to provide an advisory opinion on yet another legal issue: whether a tribal court with non-territorial based inherent sovereign authority to adjudicate matters involving tribal children necessarily has adjudicatory authority (subject to some unstated personal jurisdiction limitations) over non-tribal-member parents. This issue is not necessary to the decision before us, there is no specific controversy in this case necessitating a decision on the issue, there is no party in this case truly advocating for the interests of non-member parents on the issue, and neither the Tribe nor the United States considered the issue worthy of significant briefing; I therefore do not join the court’s advisory opinion.

Opinion is here.

Briefs here.

National Indian Law Library Bulletin 3/24/16

Here:

The National Indian Law Library added new content to the Indian Law Bulletins on 3/24/16.

U.S. Supreme Court Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/sct/2015-2016update.html
Petition was filed in California v. Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation (Gaming Compact – Waiver of Sovereign Immunity) on 3/17/16.

U.S. Federal Trial Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/dct/2016dct.html
Maniilaq Association v. Burwell (Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act; Health Services)
Tuttle v. Jewell (Indian Long-Term Leasing Act; Property Rights)
Pearson v. United Debt Holdings, LLC (Debt Collection; Tribal Exhaustion)

State Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2016state.html
State in Interest of M.D. (Indian Child Welfare Act – Active Efforts)

News Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/news/currentnews.html
In the Tribal Jurisdicti on section, we feature a couple of articles on the recent U.S. Supreme Court reservation diminishment opinion.

U.S. Legislation Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/legislation/114_uslegislation.html
Six bills we added:
S.2728: Alaska Native Access Card Act.
S.2711: Native American Education Opportunity Act.
S.2727: A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to allow preservation leasing as a form of compensatory mitigation for discharges of dredged or fill material affecting State or Indian land, and for other purposes.
S.2732: A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to exempt Indian tribes from compensatory mitigation requirements in connection with certain discharges of dredged or fill material, and for other purposes.
S.2739: Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation Equitable Compensation Act.
S.2717: DRIFT Act of 2016.

U.S. Regulatory Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/regulatory/2016fr.html
We feature a notice of the Bureau of Indian Affairs on an extension of an effective date for the final rule on rights-of-way on Indian lands.

Law Review & Bar Journal Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/lawreviews/2016lr.html
We feature an article on Indian lands and jurisdictional challenges.

Response to Media Dustup in California ICWA Case

NICWA’s statement:

We are disturbed by this weekend’s flurry of negative media attention regarding the attempted reunification of a child with her family in Utah. In this contentious custody case, there have never been any surprises as far as what the law required. The foster family was well aware years ago this girl is an Indian child, whose case is subject to the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), and who has relatives who were willing to raise her if reunification with her father was unsuccessful.
In fact, the only surprising turn of events is the lengths the foster family has gone to, under the advice of an attorney with a long history of trying to overturn ICWA, to drag out litigation as long as possible, creating instability for the child in question. That the foster family now argues bonding and attachment should supersede all else despite testimony of those closest to her case, seems like a long-term, calculated legal strategy based on the simple fact that the law was always clear, they understood it, but just chose not to abide by it.
The purpose of foster care is to provide temporary care for children while families get services and support to reunite with their children, not to fast-track the creation of new families when there is extended family available who want to care for the child. The temporary nature of these relationships is also the reason we view those who serve as foster parents as selfless and nurturing individuals. Reunification and placement with extended family whenever possible is best practice for all children, not just Native American children.
We call on the media to provide balanced reporting and to ask vital questions regarding these facts before inflaming the public and subjecting the privacy and future well-being of a little girl to national debate.

 

Our previous coverage of the appeal of this case is here.

As always, we remain concerned with the lack of privacy for a child who doesn’t get to make decisions about her identity being put forward into the press. In perhaps no surprise to anyone, this case involves repeat players from the Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl case.

California v. Pauma Band Cert Petition

Here is the petition in California v. Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma and Yuima Reservation:

Cal v Pauma Cert Petn

Question presented:

In Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974), this Court held that a waiver of state sovereign immunity must be “stated ‘by the most express language or by such overwhelming implication from the text as will leave no room for any other reasonable construction.’” Id. at 673 (alteration omitted). This case concerns a gaming compact between the State of California and the Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma and Yuima Reservation. Both parties waived their sovereign immunity from suits arising under the compact, but only to the extent that “[n]either side makes any claim for monetary damages (that is, only injunctive, specific performance, including enforcement of a provision of this Compact requiring payment of money to one or another of the parties, or declaratory relief is sought) . . . .” App. 28a. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit held that this limited waiver, which also appears in gaming compacts between California and 57 other tribes, waived the State’s immunity with respect to an award of $36.2 million in restitution.

The question presented is: Whether, under Edelman, the language of the limited waiver—which expressly excludes claims for “monetary damages” and references only injunctive relief, specific performance, and declaratory relief— waived the State’s sovereign immunity with respect to the district court’s monetary award.

Lower court materials here (panel, en banc).

NHBP Media Release: Violence Against Women Act’s Jurisdictional Provisions

Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi Asserts Authority to Prosecute All Persons, including Non-Indians, for Domestic Violence

Local Tribe to Implement Violence Against Women Act Jurisdictional Provisions

Pine Creek Indian Reservation, Athens, MI – Today, the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi announces implementation of a new tribal government law that enables tribal police and justice officials to investigate and prosecute certain domestic violence crimes committed by non-Indians in Indian country. Non-Indians who live or work on the reservation or have a marriage or dating relationship with a Native person may now be subject to tribal jurisdiction for domestic and dating violence crimes and criminal violations of certain protection orders. Individuals who commit these crimes in Indian country can be arrested by tribal police, prosecuted in tribal court, and sentenced to prison. Individuals prosecuted under the new tribal law will have a right to an attorney. If the defendant cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided by the tribe.

This is part of the Tribal Council’s larger effort to take a stand against violence in the community—and domestic violence, in particular—because of the huge toll it has taken on Native families and youth.

“Domestic violence is a uniquely local crime that has long deserved a local solution, and now we have one,” said Tribal Council Chair Homer A. Mandoka. “We will no longer stand by and watch our Native women be victimized with no recourse. I’m here to put the community on notice, perpetrators will be held accountable.”

The federal law that authorizes these recent actions by the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi is the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA 2013).  Signed into law on March 7, 2013, VAWA 2013 marked a victory for Native women, tribal leaders, women’s rights advocates, and survivors of domestic abuse everywhere. For the first time since the U.S. Supreme Court stripped tribal governments of their criminal authority over non-Indians in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978), VAWA 2013 restored tribal inherent authority to investigate, prosecute, convict, and sentence non-Indians who assault their Indian spouses or dating partners in Indian country. This aims to fill a longstanding jurisdictional gap on tribal lands that has for far too long put Native women at risk and kept the hands of tribal law enforcement tied.

Crimes committed outside of Indian country, between two strangers, between two non-Indians, or by a person without sufficient ties to the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi are not covered by this new authority.

This new law is necessary because violence against Native women has reached epidemic proportions*, and the old system of forcing tribes to rely exclusively on far away federal—and in some cases, state—government officials to investigate and prosecute crimes of domestic violence committed by non-Indians against Native women is not working.  Prior to VAWA 2013, the Indian woman who was beaten by her non-Indian husband on tribal land had nowhere to turn for protection: tribal law enforcement had no authority to intervene because the perpetrator is a non-Indian; the State had no authority to intervene because the victim was an Indian; and the Federal Government—the body with exclusive jurisdiction—had neither the will nor the resources to intervene in misdemeanor level domestic violence cases. VAWA 2013 is an attempt to remedy this broken system.

As President Obama said when he signed VAWA 2013 into law, “Tribal governments have an inherent right to protect their people, and all women deserve the right to live free from fear.”  The Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi agrees, and it’s doing its part to ensure the safety of native women and of everyone on the reservation.

About the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi

The Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi is a federally recognized Tribal government with nearly 1,100 enrolled Tribal members. The Potawatomi name is a derivation of Bodéwadmi, meaning a people of the fire or a people who make or maintain fire, both of which refer to the role of the Potawatomi as the keepers of the Council fire in an earlier alliance with other Tribes in the area. The Tribe’s main offices are located at the Pine Creek Indian Reservation in Athens Township, with additional offices in Grand Rapids, MI, to better serve our Tribal members.  The government employs more than 150 employees who work for various departments among the Tribe including Tribal Police, Tribal Court, Housing, Environment, Membership Services, Communications, Human Resources, Finance, Public Works, Planning, Health & Human Services, and the Gaming Commission.

* Compared with other demographic groups, American Indian women have one of the highest rates of domestic violence victimization in the United States. See. e.g.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Preliminary Report at 3, 39 (Nov. 2011) (finding that 46% of Native American women have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.)  A significant percentage of residents of Indian reservations are non-Indian.  See U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Briefs, The American Indian and Alaska Native Population: 2010, at pages13- 14 and table 5 (Jan. 2012) (showing that 1.1 million American Indians and 3.5 million non-Indians reside in American Indian areas).  Many married Indian women have non- Indian husbands. See U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2010, special tabulation, Census 2010 PHC-T- 19, Hispanic Origin and Race of Coupled Households: 2010, Table 1, Hispanic Origin and Race of Wife and Husband in Married-Couple Households for the United States: 2010 (Apr. 25, 2012) (showing that more than 54% of Indian wives have non-Indian husbands).

U.S. Presidential Candidates on Native American Issues

In light of campaigning in Indian Country, here are links on how leading candidates are addressing tribes:

Fmr. Sec. Hillary Clinton

“Growing Together: Hillary Clinton’s Vision for Building a Brighter Future for Native Americans” from from her campaign’s webpage.

“How Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Is Making Its Play for Native American Support” from the Atlantic.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT)

“Empowering Tribal Nations” from his campaign’s webpage.

“In Arizona, Sanders woos Native Americans” from the Associated Press and “Bernie Sanders Replaces Stump Speech with Epic Call for Native American Justice in Arizona” from US Uncut.*

*The first article is slightly biased against the Senator but is the AP wire most news outlets reported for the March 17th event.  The second article is biased towards Sanders but includes video of the full speech.

Donald Trump

Trump has no website dedicated to Native issues, but here are some reported positions:

“Donald Trump and Jeb Bush Find Common Ground on Washington’s Football Team” from the NYT reporting on Trump’s defense of the Washington NFL team’s name.

“The Connecticut Roots Of Trump’s First Big Slur” from the Hartford Currant remembering Trump’s testimony to the House Subcommittee on Native Americans in 1993 concerning Tribal casinos.

Recent Nooksack Filings (All in One Place)

There have been extremely voluminous filings in Belmont v. Kelly (Nooksack Docket No. 2014-CI-CL-007) in the last two weeks (or less). We’re going to try to put them all in one post:

March 14:

Belmont v. Kelly Fifth Declaration of Michelle Roberts

Belmont v. Kelly Reply to Response to Motion for Judicial Notice by Pro Se Plaintiff

Belmont v. Kelly Defendant-Appellants’ Notice for Permission to FIle an Interlocutory Appeal

Declaration of Judy Endejan

Endejan Motion Order and Advocates Oath to Admit to the Nooksack Tribal Court Bar

Notice of Limited Appearance

Reply to Response to Motion for Judicial Notice Filed by Pro Se Plaintif…

Smith Motion Order and Advocates Oath to Admit to the Nooksack Tribal Court Bar

March 11:

Belmont v. Kelly Defendants’ Response to Motion for Judicial Notice

Decl of CB

Decl of RD

Decl of SG (1 of 3)

Decl of SG (2 of 3)

Decl of SG (3 of 3)

Decl of TS

March 7:

Belmont v. Kelly Case Management Order Re Motion for Judicial Notice

Belmont v. Kelly Declaration of Gabriel S Galanda

Belmont v. Kelly Fourth Declaration of Michelle Roberts

Belmont v. Kelly Motion for Judicial Notice

 

Ute Mountain Ute & State of Colorado File Joint Amicus Brief in Support of Tribal Cert Petitions in NLRB Cases

Here is the brief:

Final CO-UMUT Amicus Cert Petition – Saginaw Chippewa and LRB

Berkey Williams Law Fellowship 2016-2017

Here:

Berkey Williams LLP Fellowship – 2016