habeas corpus

Matthew Villaneuve on Habeas Petitions to Free Indian Children from Boarding Schools

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Matthew Villaneuve has published “Habeas Corpus and American Indian Boarding Schools: Indigenous Self-Determination in Body and Mind, 1880–1900” in the Western Historical Quarterly.

Abstract:

This article examines the history of Native people’s use of habeas corpus to resist family separation employed in the United States’ system of Indian boarding schools. It highlights three cases brought by Native petitioners from Alaska, New Mexico, and Iowa between 1885 and 1900. These cases show how Native parents, husbands, and cousins challenged the federal agents responsible for boarding schools by appealing to federal courts for intervention on behalf of their kin confined in such schools. Moving beyond legal interpretations, however, this article further argues that Native people used these petitions to assert their capacity to make their own decisions about the proper education of their young people and to convey Indigenous values of teaching and learning. Consequently, these cases illustrate an important but understudied means by which Native people used the legal tools available to them to assert self-determination in education. These habeas corpus cases are therefore a crucial part of boarding school history, American Indian and Indigenous history, and the history of U.S. education.

PDFDownload

Federal Magistrate Recommends Rejection of Challenge to Federal & Hualapai Criminal Convictions

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials so far in Smith v. United States (D. Ariz.):

1 Motion to Vacate

8 Government Response

13 Reply

14 Magistrate Report

Navajo Nation SCT Decides Case Involving Challenge to Contempt Order for Violating PPO

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Victor Bowman v. Delores Greyeyes.  Opinion.  Bowman files a petition asking the Court to reconsider its Dec. 14, 2011 summary denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus.  Reconsideration petitions for special actions may not be filed without leave of the Court. The Court treats the petition as a motion for leave but states that, in future, petitions for leave must first be filed pursuant to N.R.C.A.P. Rule 19(d), and must contain sufficient detail for the Court to rule on the request.  In this case, the Court denies the motion as Bowman offers no new argument. (January 24, 2012).

Michigan Court of Appeals: Moses v. Dept. of Corrections

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Earlier this year, the Michigan Court of Appeals decided Moses v. Dept. of Corrections, a case brought by a convict who committed a crime on the Isabella Reservation near Mt. Pleasant. He brought a habeas claim on the basis that the parcel of land on which he committed the crime was “Indian Country” and outside the state’s jurisdiction. He lost. We’re looking up the briefs of the case right now, but the decision rested on the federal Swamp Lands Act. In short, according to the COA, Congress granted certain swamp lands to the State in 1862, lands that otherwise would have become part of the Isabella reservation, so that those lands are not nor ever were Indian Country.

The Moses Court relied on a previous Mich. COA case, People v. Bennett, 491 N.W.2d 866 (1992), which included this language:

In this case, the parties have not presented evidence of the negotiations surrounding the formation of the Treaty of October 18, 1864. However, examining the treaty itself, it appears that the parties intended for the previously sold lands to be excluded from the reservation, because the Chippewas were granted all the “unsold” lands within the six townships. Given the plain language of the treaty, and the lack of evidence to the contrary, we believe the Chippewas would have understood at the time of treaty formation that they were not permitted to settle on or own any lands previously patented to individuals. [emphasis added]

It’s fairly difficult for me to believe that the Ogemuk knew about the Swamp Land Act in 1864, especially given that most Indian agents of the day supposedly schooled in India-related laws and regulations had no clue. And to have attributed to them this knowledge, when they did not speak English, on the basis that the plain language is the plain language, is a sad joke. Of course, the Supreme Court cases on treaty interpretation do the same thing.

This proves once again that tribal reservation boundaries should only be litigated after the tribe has done its research. And it is unfortunate that so many of these cases arise in the context of criminal law where convicts or defendants are seeking to vacate a conviction on jurisdictional bases. Courts there are just looking for any out.