District of South Dakota – Page 17

The pending motion for partial summary judgment presents the issue of tribal court jurisdiction over non-Indians who contract with a company doing business from an Indian reservation. The “pathmarking” case on tribal authority over nonmembers is Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981). See Strate v. A-I Contractors, 520 U.S. 438, 445 (1997) (describing Montana as “pathmarking” and applying Montana to evaluate tribal court jurisdiction authority over non-Indians.) In Montana, the Supreme Court recognized two areas in which Indian tribes have sovereign power to exercise authority over nonmembers on their reservation. The first such “Montana exception” recognizes tribal authority over “the activities of nonmembers who enter consensual relationships with a tribe or its members, through commercial dealing, contracts, leases, or other arrangements.”Montana, 450 U.S. at 565. The precise question presented in this case is one of first impression: When a company conducting business from an Indian reservation enters into a commercial contract with a non-Indian, is it an unfair and deceptive practice for the company to include forum selection and consent to tribal jurisdiction provisions in [2] the contract and to then expect to litigate any alleged breach of contract claim against the non-Indian in tribal court? This Court determines that, under the circumstances of this case and on the sole issue currently before this Court, such contract provisions are not unfair and deceptive when the non-Indian has entered into “consensual relationships [with tribal] members” with a sufficient connection to on-reservation activities to make the consent to jurisdiction and forum selection provisions enforceable under the first Montana exception. See Montana, 450 U.S. at 565. However, in this case, two open issues prompt this Court to deny Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment: (1) This Court’s record lacks information establishing that the Defendants are in fact “members” of the tribe for purposes of the first Montana exception; and (2) an ambiguity in the contract exists as to under what circumstances the non-Indian is consenting to tribal court jurisdiction in addition to binding arbitration.

ACLU Announcement on Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik

March 21, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here.

An excerpt:

Three Indian parents, the Oglala Sioux Tribe, and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe filed a class-action lawsuit to challenge the continued removal of Indian children in Pennington County, South Dakota from their homes based on insufficient evidence and without proper hearings, in violation of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 and the constitutional right to due process.

Congress enacted ICWA to put in place federal safeguards for the removal of Indian children from their homes to both protect the interests of Indian children and give Indian tribes a voice in the process, because of an alarming number of Indian children who were removed from their homes and their tribes. Family separation can be particularly difficult for Indian children because not only are children separated from their parents, but because they are often placed with non-Indian families, they also experience separation from their culture.

When children are removed from their parents based on an allegation of neglect or abuse, a substantive hearing should normally be held in order to determine whether their children should continue to be separated from them. Instead, the lawsuit contends, Pennington County officials hold a cursory hearing in 48 hours that sometimes lasts no more than a minute, where all of the documents are kept a secret from the parents and they are not permitted to introduce any evidence, and their children are then removed for a minimum of 60 days and usually 90 days, according to the complaint. Most parents are also unfairly coerced by the court to “work with” the state Department of Social Services (DSS), which essentially authorizes the department to hold the children for at least two months under whatever terms DSS wants. DSS rarely seeks to assist the family.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit along with the ACLU of South Dakota and Dana Hanna of the Hanna Law Office in Rapid City. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of three parents in Pennington County, as well as the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, which are federally recognized Indian tribes with reservations in South Dakota.