Semi-Split Tenth Circuit Decides Chegup v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation [banishment]

Here is the opinion.

Briefs here.

An excerpt:

We begin by discussing the tribal exhaustion doctrine involved in this case. “[W]hen a federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim arising in Indian country over which a tribal forum has colorable jurisdiction, principles of comity and the federal policy of promoting tribal self-government generally require that the plaintiff fully exhaust tribal remedies before proceeding in federal court.” Restatement of the Law of Am. Indians § 59 cmt. a (Am. Law Inst., Proposed Final Draft 2021).

slip op. at 14.

Maybe a little more Restatement. . . .

Post–Santa Clara Pueblo, federal review has been limited to habeas, leaving tribal courts to adjudicate any other civil rights claims. See Restatement of the Law of Am. Indians § 16 cmt. a (“With the exception of actions for habeas corpus relief [under § 1303, ICRA’s civil rights] guarantees are enforceable exclusively in tribal courts and other tribal fora.”).

slip op. at 21.
Ute Indians camped at Belle Fourche, South Dakota, who are dissatisfied with their treatment: Capt. Johnson, with the Sixth Cavalry from Ft. Meade, S.D., addressing Indians, who they were sent to arrest

And more. . . .

Tribal exhaustion doctrine exists to preserve tribal sovereignty and prevent the federal courts from running roughshod over tribal legal systems. See Norton, 862 F.3d at 1243; Restatement of the Law of Am. Indians § 28 cmt. a (“[A]djudication of matters impairing reservation affairs by any nontribal court . . . infringes upon tribal law-making authority, because tribal courts are best qualified to interpret and apply tribal law.”).

Slip op. at 34.

New Update in Adams v. Elfo [Nooksack Habeas Matter]

Here are new materials in Adams v. Elfo (W.D. Wash.):

56 Motion for Reconsideration

60 Response

62 DCT Order Remanding Motion to Magistrate

65 Nooksack Brief

66 Tribal Judge Brief

67 Adams Brief

69 Magistrate Report

70 Adams Objections

72 Tribe Response

73 Tribal Court Response

74 DCT Order

Prior post here.

 

Federal Court Dismisses ICRA Habeas Petition Challenging Enhanced Sentence under TLOA

Here are the materials in Picard v. Colville Tribal Correction Facility (E.D. Wash.):

1 Habeas Petition

15 Answer

15-5 Colville Appellate Court Opinion

21 DCT Order

Update in Adams v. Dodge [Nooksack Habeas Matter] — Updated

Here are the new materials in Adams v. Dodge (W.D. Wash.), formerly Adams v. Elfo:

45 Magistrate R&R on 2d Habeas Petition

46 Petitioner Objections

48 Supplement to Petitioner’s Objections to Magistrate’s Second Report and Recommendation

51 Tribe Response

52 Tribal Court Response

54 DCt Order Adopting Magistrate R&R

Prior post here.

Update:

56 Motion for Reconsideration

60 Response

62 DCT Order

Tenth Circuit Briefs in Chegup v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation [banishment]

Here:

3-24-20 Appellants’ Opening Brief

5-22-20 Appellees’ Brief

6-5-20 Appellants’ Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Update in Adams v. Elfo [Nooksack Habeas Matter]

Here are the new materials in Adams v. Elfo (W.D. Wash.):

35 Magistrate Report

36 Objections

38 Tribe Response to Objections

39 Tribal Court Response to Objections

40 Reply

43 DCT Order

Nooksack tag here.

Federal Court Materials in Ute Banishment Case

Here are the materials so far in Chegup v. Ute Indian Tribal Court of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (D. Utah):

2-complaint.pdf

20-motion-for-immediate-release.pdf

46-tribe-motion-to-dismiss.pdf

47-response-to-mtd.pdf

53-reply-in-support-of-motion-for-release.pdf

54-reply-in-support-of-mtd.pdf

73-motion-for-atty-fees.pdf

77-response-to-motion-for-atty-fees.pdf

79-reply-in-support-of-motion-for-atty-fees.pdf

82-motion-to-intervene.pdf

83-dct-order-denying-intervention.pdf