Fletcher Commentary on Dollar General in the Yale Law Journal Forum

Here is “Contract and (Tribal) Jurisdiction.” (PDF)

Excerpts:

Consider two commercial contracts. The first requires customers to waive their rights to bring class actions against large businesses in favor of private arbitration. The second requires a reservation leaseholder to adjudicate disputes in tribal court. Both contracts require dispute resolution in fora over which the Supreme Court does not exercise supervisory jurisdiction. Both arbitration and tribal courts are favored by acts of Congress.1 Both contracts are hotly contested in the Supreme Court. But the arbitration clause contract has been affirmed in a series of recent decisions.2 The tribal court contract, by contrast, is pending before the Court in Dollar General Corp. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.3 Ironically, while the more conservative Justices signed on to the arbitration clause decisions, these same Justices may be Dollar General’s best bets for escaping tribal jurisdiction. This short Essay details the key arguments in Dollar General and argues that to undo the tribal contract would unnecessarily and unconstitutionally undo the right to contract for Indian nations.

And:

Justice Scalia’s death may mean a 4-4 tie in the Dollar General case. Justice Scalia was in the majority in the most recent tribal civil jurisdiction dispute, Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co.,32 decided by a 5-4 vote, split along the traditional conservative-liberal voting pattern. In Plains Commerce, Justice Scalia asked a nonmember company that had not specified jurisdiction in its commercial agreement with a tribal member-owned business: “[Y]our client could have obtained that certainly [sic] by inserting a choice of law provision providing that any disputes would be resolved somewhere else, couldn’t it?”33 The answer in that case from the nonmember? “I think that in the face of silence in the contract, the general rule [against tribal jurisdiction] controls rather than its exceptions.”34 There is a choice of law provision in Dollar General, negotiated at arm’s length by sophisticated business entities, and it points to tribal court jurisdiction.35

 

National Indian Law Library Bulletin 4/11/2016

Here:

The National Indian Law Library added new content to the Indian Law Bulletins on 4/11/16.

U.S. Supreme Court Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/sct/2015-2016update.html
See the Tribal Supreme Court Project’s Update Memoranda of April 4, 2016.

U.S. Courts of Appeals Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/cta/2016cta.html
U.S. v. Rainbow (Criminal Assault in Indian Country)

News Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/news/currentnews.html
In the Tribal Jurisdiction section, we feature a story about a court victory in Utah state court involving tribal jurisdiction.

U.S. Regulatory Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/regulatory/2016fr.html
We feature proposed rules of the Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, regarding the adoption and foster care analysis and reporting system.

Stanford Law School’s Production of Sliver of a Full Moon

Stanford NALSA is proud to announce the upcoming performance of Sliver of a Full Moon on Tuesday, May 10th, at 6PM followed by a panel on Native American sovereignty on May 11th.

Sliver of a Full Moon, written by playwright and attorney Mary Kathryn Nagle of the Cherokee Nation, is a portrayal of justice under the rule of law – the story of a movement to restore safety and access to justice to indigenous women in the U.S. It chronicles the history of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and the stories of the women it affected, featuring a cast of courageous Native women survivors who stepped forward to share their stories of abuse by non-Indians. The website can be found at http://sliverofafullmoon.org/.

There will be a reception prior to the performance, and the show will be followed by a Q&A session with the cast and survivors. Attendees will have the opportunity to engage more deeply with the details of the legal landscape at play during a lunch panel the following day, discussing VAWA reauthorization and its implications for Indian country. Panelists will include OJ Flores, Chief Prosecutor for the Pascua Yaqui, Judge Fletcher of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as a tribal judge.

Tickets to both the performance and the panel are free and simply require registration at the following link: http://tinyurl.com/gsolaz8

Indian Law Job at Interior

Link to USA Jobs announcement here.

The Office of the Solicitor is looking for an attorney to advise on the Land Buy Back Program.  Offer closes April 18, 2016.

Cert Stage Briefs in Zepeda v. United States

Here:

Zepeda Cert Petition

US Cert Opp Brief

Zepeda Reply

Lower court opinion here. En banc materials here, here, and here. Panel materials and other materials here, here, and here.

Summer Intern Positions within the National Indian Gaming Commission

Download job description here.

Applications due by April 22, 2016.

N.Y. Appellate Division Affirms Legality of Gaming Compacts

Here is the opinion in Schulz v. State of New York Executive:

520670

An excerpt:

The Gaming Act, among other things, provided a statutory framework for regulating casino gambling within the state and effectuated three agreements entered into between the state and the Oneida Indian Nation, the Seneca Nation of Indians and the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Indian Nations). Those agreements generally provided that the state would grant the Indian Nations exclusive gaming rights within their respective geographic areas in exchange for a percentage of the gaming revenues and/or support for the then proposed casino gambling referendum, which was passed by the voters at the November 2013 general election.

Lawsuit Challenges BIA Right of Way Regulations

Greenberg Traurig has filed a lawsuit against the Department of the Interior on behalf of the Western Energy Alliance, challenging the Department’s proposed Right of Way Regulations.  The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for North Dakota, and is captioned as Western Energy Alliance v. United States Department of the Interior.

The complaint is here: Western Energy Alliance v. DOI Complaint

Western Energy Alliance’s brief in support of motion for a TRO and Preliminary Injunction is here:  Western Energy Alliance Brief in Support of TRO.

Department of the Interior’s Response Brief is here: Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction

The Western Energy Alliance alleges:

  1. The proposed rule violates Strate v. A-1 Contractors, because it attempts to allow Indian tribes to exercise jurisdiction over non-Indians within rights-of-way
  2. The proposed rule improperly allows Indian tribes to unilaterally terminate rights-of-way
  3. The proposed rule violates traditional rules regarding tribal jurisdiction
  4. The proposed rule authorizes Indian tribes to tax activities within rights-of-way in violation of the scope of tribal jurisdiction
  5. The Department has failed to explain the basis for its departure from longstanding federal policy regarding rights of way.
  6. The Department failed to comply with NEPA

Interestingly, the Western Energy Alliance also asserts that the Department of the Interior has no authority to impose sanctions or otherwise take enforcement action against trespassers within rights-of-way:

Congress has not otherwise granted BIA the ability to deal with trespass on Indian lands that would serve as the basis for the Rule’s sweeping assumption of trespass authority. As such, BIA is without authority to enforce alleged trespass actions within Indian land rights-of-way, or over Indian lands generally.

 

The District Court is holding a hearing on Western Energy Alliance’s motion this morning in Bismarck, ND. Commentary to follow.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in County of Amador v. DOI & No Casino in Plymouth v. Jewell

Here are the briefs in County of Amador v. Dept. of Interior:

Opening Brief

Federal Answer Brief

County Reply

Other briefs TK

Here are the briefs in No Casino in Plymouth v. Jewell:

Opening Brief

Federal Answer Brief

Ione Band Answer

NCIP Reply

Lower court materials for both cases here.

New Filings at Nooksack

Here:

Belmont v. Kelly Motion for Order to Show Cause Re Contemp

Galanda v. Bernard Appellate Petition for Writ of Mandamus