District of Arizona – Page 10

This is the attempted class action litigation claiming ICWA violated the Constitution.This is a big win for ICWA and the legal advocates who worked on this case at the state, federal, and tribal levels.

Here is the Order.

The legal questions Plaintiffs wish to adjudicate here in advance of injury to themselves will be automatically remediable for anyone actually injured. The very allegations of wrongfulness are that such injuries will arise in state court child custody proceedings, directly in the court processes or in actions taken by state officers under the control and direction of judges in those proceedings. Any true injury to any child or interested adult can be addressed in the state court proceeding itself, based on actual facts before the court, not on hypothetical concerns. If any Plaintiffs encounter future real harm in their own proceedings, the judge in their own case can discern the rules of decision. They do not have standing to have this Court pre-adjudicate for state court judges how to rule on facts that may arise and that may be governed by statutes or guidelines that this Court may think invalid.

Here is the joint press release from the ICWA Defense Project.

Federal Court Suppresses Defendant’s Statements to IHS Worker in Presence of Tribal Police

March 15, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in United States v. Walsh (D. Ariz.):

34 Motion to Preclude

44 Response

46 Reply

90 DCT Suppression Order

Federal Court Orders Exhaustion in Claims involving Interpretation of Navajo Insurance Law

February 13, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Progressive Advanced Insurance Company v. Worker (D. Ariz.):

An excerpt:

The Court determines that the tribal courts of the Navajo Nation have a colorable or plausible claim to jurisdiction over this matter. See Elliott, 566 F.3d at 848. Like the insurer in Stump, Progressive issued an insurance policy that listed a tribal member as a named insured and covered vehicles that were kept on tribal lands. Unlike the insurer in Stump, however, Progressive never mailed anything to an address on tribal lands. To the extent that factor is dispositive, it may be that the tribal court lacks jurisdiction. But this is a question that must be answered first by the tribal courts of the Navajo Nation. See LaPlante, 480 U.S. at 16 (explaining that the tribal court should have “‘the first opportunity to evaluate the factual and legal bases for the challenge’ to its jurisdiction”). An analysis of the Todecheene decision does not change this conclusion. In that case, the Ninth Circuit ultimately determined that it was not clear that the tribal courts plainly lacked jurisdiction. Todecheene, 488 F.3d at 1216. This Court reaches the same conclusion here.