Blackfeet Tribal Court

The Court at this juncture simply must determine whether jurisdiction is “plainly” lacking. The standard set forth in Grand Canyon Skywalk applies to this case irrespective ofthe ambiguous nature of the land ownership. Glacier Electric’s actions, at the minimum, amount to an intrusion on the Blackfeet Tribe’s right to exclude. Glacier Electric’s actions could be subject to the Blackfeet Tribe’s right to regulate and adjudicate non-members based on interference with its right to exclude.

Federal Court Orders Exhaustion of Tribal Remedies in Suit Brought against Pharmaceutical Company in Blackfeet Tribal Court

April 28, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Takeda Pharmaceuticals America v. Connelly (D. Mont.):

An excerpt:

The Court at this juncture simply must determine whether Blackfeet Tribal Court “plainly” lacks jurisdiction. The IHS facility sits on leased Indian land. This fact, by itself, amounts to a colorable claim of jurisdiction. The Blackfeet Tribal Court maintains a colorable claim of jurisdiction based on the alleged conduct on tribal trust land. This determination precludes analysis at this point as to whether either Montana exception provides a colorable basis for Blackfeet Tribal Court jurisdiction. Admiral Ins. Co. v. Blue Lake Rancheria Tribal Ct., 2012 WL 1144331 (N.D. Cal. 2012).

Federal Court Dismisses Pro Se Effort to Return “Peace Flag”

October 30, 2013October 29, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Gopher v. Cascade County (D. Mont.):

Complaint

DCT Order Dismissing Complaint

An excerpt:

Ms. Gopher seeks the return of a 13-star peace flag bundle and its contents. She contends that Cascade County has exercised illegal control over the Gopher family’s artifacts. She seeks an immediate injunction barring the effect of a November 12, 2012 state court order, the return of her family’s property which was subject to a probate action which commenced in Cascade County on July 22, 2010, and a stay of all state court proceedings.

The Montana Supreme Court ruled on this matter previously.

Montana SCT Asserts Jurisdiction over “Ojibwe Peace Flag” Probate

September 19, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Estate of Gopher:

An excerpt:

In its order, the Blackfeet Tribal Court unequivocally declined to assert subject matter jurisdiction with respect to the flag, the subject of this appeal. The Blackfeet Tribal Court noted that the “flag is located in Cascade County and has never been on the Blackfeet reservation” and Dorothy was domiciled in Cascade County at the time of her death. The Blackfeet Tribal Court stated it “will not accept any further filings from the Gopher family in regards to the thirteen star flag until they have prevailed in their litigation in the State Court.” No evidence supports the siblings’ argument that the Blackfeet Tribal Court’s decision was made “prematurely or through error.” Because the Blackfeet Tribal Court has expressly declined to assert jurisdiction over the Estate property, it is clear that the District Court did not unlawfully infringe on the Blackfeet Tribe’s right of tribal self-government. Moreover, because Dorothy resided in Cascade County at the time of her death and the corpus of the Estate is located in Cascade County, venue was proper, and the District Court did not err when it assumed jurisdiction over the probate of the Estate.

Ninth Circuit Rejects Federal Court Jurisdiction in State Law, Nonmember Claims over Tribal Allotment

August 5, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in K2 America Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas Co.

Here is an excerpt:

In this appeal, we consider whether federal jurisdiction exists over a lawsuit between two Montana corporations alleging state law claims arising from a dispute over lands held by the United States in trust for various Indian allottees. We conclude that federal jurisdiction does not extend to the claims, and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Another excerpt:

The district court properly dismissed this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We need not—and do not—reach any other issues raised by the parties, including exhaustion of tribal remedies. We note, though, that our holding does not preclude K2 from seeking relief in Blackfeet Tribal Court. See, e.g., Longie, 400 F.3d at 591. “Indeed, there may be circumstances in which a nonmember plaintiff may have no forum other than the tribal courts in which to bring his claims.” Smith v. Salish Kootenai Coll., 434 F.3d 1127, 1140 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc).

And here are the briefs:

Continue reading →