Alaska Supreme Court

Alaska SCT Holds Tanana Chiefs Conference is Immune from Suit by Own Membership

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Dot Lake Village vs. Dena Nena Henash d/b/a Tanana Chiefs Conference:

Opinion.pdfDownload

Briefs:

Opening Brief.pdfDownload
Answer Brief.pdfDownload
Reply.pdfDownload

Alaska SCT Decides “Race to the Courthouse” in Favor of First-Filed Tribal Court Matter

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Mallette v. Adams:

Opinion.pdfDownload

Alaska SCT Affirms TPR Decision over Active Efforts Challenge

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Ruby C. v. State of Alaska Dept. of Family and Children’s Services:

Ruby C v State.pdfDownload

Alaska SCT Affirms Arbitration Award Arising from Attorney Fee Dispute Involving Allotment Trust Breach

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Oenga v. Givens:

Opinion.pdfDownload

Alaska SCT Affirms Grant of Full Faith and Credit to Native Village of Tanana Court Order under ICWA

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in Jethro A. v. Native Village of Tanana:

OpinionDownload

Alaska Tribal Nations and Orgs Amicus Brief in Alaska Opioids Litigation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the brief in State of Alaska v. Albertson’s:

Tribal Amicus .pdfDownload

Alaska SCT Decides Cross-Border Jurisdictional Dispute over Indian Child

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in O’Brien v. Delaplain:

OpinionDownload

Alaska SCT Affirms ICWA Tribal Court Transfer over Foster Parents’ Objection

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Rosalind M. v. State of Alaska:

sp-7718.pdfDownload

Alaska SCT Modifies “Arm of the Tribe” Doctrine

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Ito v. Copper River Native Association:

Ito v CRNA.pdfDownload

Alaska Supreme Court Adopts In re Z.J.G. Reasoning in ICWA Reason to Know Opinion

Kate Fort

JimmyE

[14]We consider the Washington Supreme Court’s reasoning to be persuasive and note that other states also consider a specific, recent claim of Native heritage to be a “reason to know” the child is an Indian child.47 Tribes have many methods to determine membership or eligibility for membership, including lineal descent or blood quantum.48Additionally, a tribe may enroll an eligible child after being notified by a state agency that the child is involved in a child custody proceeding.49 Because the tribe as sovereign has exclusive power to determine tribal membership or eligibility for tribal membership, notifying the tribe when a child who may be a member is involved in a child custody proceeding is imperative to implementing ICWA’s protections of tribes and tribal members.

***

Perhaps more importantly, treating a parent’s uncertain statements as determinative in a context like this could undermine tribal sovereignty, because the tribe decides who is a member.56 It is a “basic federal rule” that tribes are the exclusive authority on their membership.57 We have previously held that absent a determination by a tribe, a child’s membership or eligibility for membership in a tribe is likely not subject to judicial admission, recognizing the legal authority of tribes to determine membership.58 Giving too much weight to the statements of a party without proof or input from the tribe would undermine this fundamental principle.

***

We reiterate that a “reason to know” that children are Indian children may arise in many different ways, based upon a multitude of different pieces of information, and determining whether there is a “reason to know” is a fact-intensive analysis requiring consideration of the record of information and context presented in any given case.64 Here, Jimmy’s specific claim that he is a recent descendant of a CIRI shareholder, paired with his early assertions related to his children’s tribal affiliation, gave OCS and the court “reason to know” his children are Indian children, triggering OCS’s duty to inquire and to treat the children as Indian children pending a definitive answer as to their status.