Federal Court Holds Tribe May Prosecute Disenrollee

Here are the materials in Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians v. Phebus (D. Nev.):

1 Complaint

1-1 Tribal Court of Appeals Opinion

8 Motion for Declaratory Judgment

10 DCT Order

An excerpt:

The Court DECLARES that the Tribe may assert criminal jurisdiction over any person qualifying as an Indian under the ICRA, as interpreted in cases such as United States v. Bruce, 394 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2005), but in such a prosecution the Tribe must prove Indian status beyond a reasonable doubt, and the Tribal Court must submit the question to a jury where the crime is punishable by imprisonment, unless the jury right is properly waived, and there is no evidence that these procedures were followed as to Phebus in the cases cited. Furthermore, if the Tribe seeks to prosecute a non-member whose membership it has revoked or rejected, the Indian status analysis in such a prosecution may not rely upon political affiliation with the Tribe, but only upon actual or de facto membership in another tribe.

Nooksack Tribal Court Materials on Disenrollees Motion for Contempt

Here are the new materials in St. Germaine v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):

St Germain v. Kelly Motion for Order to Show Cause Re Contempt

St Germain v. Kelly Declaration of Leah Zapata

St. Germain v. Kelly Declaration of Agripina Smith

St. Germain v. Kelly Response to Plaintiffs Motion of Ord to Show Cause Re Contempt

Previous materials in this case are here and here.

 

Nooksack Issues TRO in Nooksack Tribal Christmas Checks Dispute with Proposed Disenrollees

Here are the new materials in St. Germaine v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):

St Germain v Kelly Brief in Support of TRO Relief

St Germain v Kelly Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Motion for TRO

St Germain v Kelly Order Granting Motion for TRO

An excerpt from the order:

Therefore, the Court finds that, at this preliminary TRO stage in this matter, the Defendants have violated the Nooksack Indian Tribe’s Constitution, Article IX and the Equal Protection clause of the Indian Civil Rights Act in passing Resolution 13-171 and acting upon it. The Court orders that the Defendants be enjoined from treating the proposed disenrollees differently from other tribal members with respect to the Christmas Support distribution. However, the Court finds that the Court cannot order specific relief requiring the expenditure of tribal funds. The Court hopes, however, that the Defendants will consider the implications of Resolution 13-171 and treat the Plaintiff proposed-disenrollees fairly, despite the fact that the Court is prohibited by the law from ordering them to do so.

VAWA Pilot Project Final Notice

Here:

VAWA Pilot Project Final Notice November 29 2013

Summary:

This final notice establishes procedures for Indian tribes to request designation as participating tribes under section 204 of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, on an accelerated basis, under the voluntary pilot project described in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act; establishes procedures for the Attorney General to act on such requests; and solicits such requests from Indian tribes.

Illinois Law Review Student Note on Uncounseled Tribal Court Convictions and ICRA

The University of Illinois law Review has published “Uncounseled Tribal Court Convictions: The Sixth Amendment, Tribal Sovereignty, and the Indian Civil Rights Act.”

Here is the abstract:

Tribal courts tasked with the prosecution of Native American defendants are not constrained by many Constitutional provisions, including the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in criminal proceedings. Currently, the Indian Civil Rights Act only requires representation in tribal court prosecutions of indigent defendants that may lead to incarceration of more than one year. State and federal courts require the opportunity of representation for all defendants in criminal proceedings. This discrepancy between the rights afforded in tribal courts and in state and federal courts lead to unique legal issues for Native American defendants indicted in federal court after being convicted without counsel in a tribal court.
Native Americans prosecuted under federal re-peat-offender statues could be exposed to harsher penalties based on prior uncounseled tribal con-victions. Thus, even if a Native American lacked representation in tribal court, those convictions might be used as predicate offenses for the purposes of federal repeat-offender laws. Different approaches to this issue are presented from the Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits. This Note ad-dresses the reasoning of each Circuit and offers a Recommendation that balances tribal sovereignty concerns, Sixth Amendment ramifications, and justice implications for both victims and defendants in the tribal court system.

DOJ Publishes Notice of VAWA Pilot Program

Here.

Description:

This notice proposes procedures for an Indian tribe to request designation as a participating tribe under section 204 of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, on an accelerated basis, pursuant to the voluntary pilot project described in section 908(b)(2) of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (“the Pilot Project”), and also proposes procedures for the Attorney General to act on such a request. This notice also invites public comment on the proposed procedures and solicits preliminary expressions of interest from tribes that may wish to participate in the Pilot Project.

Tulalip COA Holds ICRA’s Excessive Fines Clause Applies to Tribal Civil Forfeiture

Here is the opinion in The Tulalip Tribes v. 2008 White Ford Econoline Van (Tulalip Tribal Court of Appeals).

Barbara Creel on the the Right to Counsel in Indian Country

Barbara Creel has posted “The Right to Counsel for Indians Accused of Crime: A Tribal and Congressional Imperative,” published in the Michigan Journal of Race & Law (my law school journal!), on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Native American Indians charged in tribal court criminal proceedings are not entitled to court appointed defense counsel. Under well-settled principles of tribal sovereignty, Indian tribes are not bound by Fifth Amendment due process guarantees or Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Instead, they are bound by the procedural protections established by Congress in the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968. Under the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA), Indian defendants have the right to counsel at their own expense. This Article excavates the historical background of the lack of counsel in the tribal court arena and exposes the myriad problems that it presents for Indians and tribal sovereignty.

While an Indian has the right to defense counsel in federal criminal court proceedings, he does not in tribal court. This distinction makes a grave difference for access to justice for Americans Indians not only in tribal court, but also in state and federal courts. The Article provides in-depth analysis, background, and context necessary to understand the right to counsel under the ICRA and the U.S. Constitution. Addressing serious civil rights violations that negatively impact individual Indians and a tribe’s right to formulate due process, this Article ultimately supports an unqualified right to defense counsel in tribal courts.

Defense counsel is an indispensable element of the adversary system without which justice would not “still be done.” Tribes, however, were forced to embrace a splintered system of justice that required the adversary system but prohibited an adequate defense. The legacy of colonialism and the imposition of this fractured adversary system has had a devastating impact on the formation of tribal courts. This legacy requires tribal and congressional leaders to rethink the issue of defense counsel to ensure justice and fairness in tribal courts today. The Article concludes that tribes should endeavor to provide counsel to all indigent defendants appearing in tribal courts and calls upon Congress to fund the provision of counsel to reverse the legacy of colonialism and avoid serious human rights abuses.

Highly recommended!

Federal Court Dismisses ICRA Habeas Claim against Seneca Nation by Tribal Member Facing Quasi-Banishment

Sorry about the “quasi-banishment.” It’s a made up word, I know. 🙂

Mr. Mitchell contended that the Council’s action imposing certain restrictions on him (following a federal indictment charging him with fraudulent acts in connection with his position with a Nation gaming enterprise) subjected him to custody for purposes of ICRA, and sought habeas corpus relief. The Court held that Mr. Mitchell is not subject to custody or detention, and did not reach the question of exhausting tribal court remedies.

Here are the materials in Mitchell v. Seneca Nation of Indians (W.D. N.Y.):

15-1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(B)(1)

18 Mitchell Opposition Motion Dismiss 1

9 – SNI Reply – Motion to Dismiss

23 – Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

Ninth Circuit Rejects Challenge to Colville Tribal Membership Determination

Here are the materials in Desautel v. Dupris:

Desautel Opening Brief

Colville Answer Brief

CA9 Unpublished Opinion