District of Minnesota – Page 6

Federal Court Rejects Effort to Appeal Shakopee Tribal Court Marriage Dissolution/Child Custody Order

March 26, 2018March 26, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Nguyen v. Gustafson (D. Minn.):

The plaintiff in this case is also the plaintiff in Americans for Tribal Court Equality v. Piper.

Doe v. Jesson Case (MN Federal ICWA Case) Dismissed as Moot

August 8, 2017Kate Fort

Here is the opinion.

After two years, the Minnesota federal district court dismissed the voluntary adoption case challenging the provisions of the Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA) allowing for notice and intervention of a child’s tribe in the proceedings. While the court states that the case presented Constitutional questions, the proceedings were moot and did not meet the standard for capable of repetition but evading review to keep the case live. There’s a nice discussion of that standard for practitioners who have been wondering how that might work in a child welfare case.

Plaintiffs have 30 days to file a notice of appeal if they so choose.

This is the last of the summer 2015 batch of federal ICWA challenges filed. All of them were ultimately dismissed. Carter v. Washburn is currently on appeal to the 9th Circuit.

Federal Court Dismisses Pro Se Wrongful Termination Claim against White Earth Ojibwe

February 24, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Harper v. White Earth Human Resources (D. Minn.):

9-motion-to-dismiss

26-magistrate-report

28-dct-order

Federal Court Orders Tribal Exhaustion in Repo Matter

November 16, 2016November 16, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Tiessen v. Chrysler Capital (D. Minn.):

15 Repossessor Motion to Dismiss

Federal Court Refuses to Suppress Statements Made to Red Lake Tribal Police in Federal Prosecution

May 17, 2016May 17, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in United States v. Makwa (D. Minn.):

24 Motion to Suppress

42 Objection Memorandum

43 US Response

46 DCT Order

Doe v. Jesson, now Piper, Partially Survives Motion to Dismiss

February 29, 2016Kate Fort

Here. This is the federal case challenging the Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act.

The Court finds that it has jurisdiction to hear the Does’ complaint, but only against the government defendants. The Court will dismiss Commissioner Moose from the case because he is a tribal officer and not a state officer; does not enforce MIFPA; and is not restricted by the constitutional clauses at issue here. But even though the Court may proceed to the merits of the Does’ complaint against the government defendants, the Court will not decide the merits now. The parties necessarily and understandably devoted nearly all of the briefs to the numerous preliminary issues. Although the jurisdictional questions were well briefed, the Does’ equal protection and due process claims received less attention than they deserved. Accordingly, in deciding these motions the Court will express no opinion on the merits – only on the preliminary matters. It may be that Defendants’ positions on the merits are correct – or incorrect – but those questions will be decided another day.