Thanks to N.X.:
Today’s Star Tribune reports that the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that tribal members aren’t exempt from civil commitment. The link to the court’s opinion is here.
August 11, 2011 update:
Here is the opinion.
And the briefs:
Minnesota Supreme Court
Minnesota Supreme Court ICWA Case–In re R.S. and L.S.
The Center wrote an amici brief for this case on behalf of the Center, Leech Lake and Mille Lacs. Our discussion of the role of the GAL is in the second half of the brief.
Amici Brief for ILPC, Leech Lake and Mille Lacs
Lower court decision in the case:
Note about Minnesota Workers’ Comp Case
Here is the notice about this case.
An excerpt:
Case name: Swenson v. Nickaboine d/b/a Northland Quality Builders, No. A10-380 (Minn. 02/02/11).
Ruling: The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the workers’ compensation laws could cover a worker injured while working on an Indian reservation.
Our postings about the opinion release, and the briefs.
Briefs in Minnesota SCT Case Dealing with State Workers’ Comp Jurisdiction over Indian Country Workers
We reported last month on that decision here.
Here are the briefs:
Minn. Supreme Court Affirms Limited Worker’s Comp. Jurisdiction over Indian Country
A divided Minnesota Supreme Court (4-3, at least on the jurisdiction question) held in Swenson v. Nickaboine that the state worker’s comp statute applies to an on-reservation, Indian-owned business where the worker in question was a non-Indian.
Here is an excerpt from the dissent:
The majority holds that Minnesota had subject matter jurisdiction based on 40 U.S.C. § 3172. But we held in Tibbetts v. Leech Lake Reservation Business Committee, 397 N.W.2d 883, 888 (Minn. 1986), that in section 3172, Congress did not subject the tribe to jurisdiction in Minnesota courts. The majority distinguishes Tibbetts because that case involved a workers‟ compensation claim brought by a tribal member against a tribe; whereas this case involves an injured worker who is not a tribal member and an employer that is owned by a tribal member but is not a tribal corporation. But holding that Congress did not waive the sovereign immunity of the tribe in section 3172, as we did in Tibbetts, does not provide a basis for the majority‟s conclusion that Congress, in section 3172, vested subject matter jurisdiction in the state to enforce its workers‟ compensation laws. In my view, our discussion in Tibbetts supports the opposite result on the jurisdictional question.
Minnesota SCT Excludes Minnesota Warriors for Justice Candidates from Election
Here are the dual opinions in Paquin v. Mack, and Beaulieu v. Mack.
Interesting cases, in that the Paquin case raised a challenge to state election law based on Public Law 280.
Minnesota Supreme Court Assigns ICWA Indigent Counsel Costs to Counties, rather than State
Here are the two opinions and their syllabi: (1) In re S.L.J.
1. Although indigent Indian parents have the right under the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1912(b) (2006), to representation by court-appointed counsel in juvenile protection proceedings, in the absence of express statutory authority under Minn. Stat. § 611.14 (2008) indigent Indian parents do not have the right under either Minn. Stat. §§ 611.16 or 611.18 (2008), to the appointment of public defenders to represent them.
2. Under Minn. Stat. § 260C.331 (2008), the cost of court-appointed counsel to represent indigent Indian parents in juvenile protection proceedings is a charge upon the county in which the proceedings are held.
3. Under Minn. Stat. § 375.1691 (2008), a judicial order compelling the payment of county funds must be paid no later than the first fiscal year after the order is received by the county.
(2) In re J.B.
1. Although indigent parents, guardians, and custodians have the right under Minn. Stat. § 260C.163, subds. 3(a) and (b) (2008), to representation by court-appointed counsel in juvenile protection proceedings, in the absence of express statutory authority under Minn. Stat. ch. 611 (2008), indigent parents, guardians, and custodians do not have the right to the appointment of a public defender to represent them.
2. Under Minn. Stat. § 260C.331 (2008), the cost of court-appointed counsel to represent indigent parents, guardians, and custodians in juvenile protection proceedings is a charge upon the county in which the proceedings are held.
3. The district court did not err in holding the county in civil contempt for failing to obey the court’s order to pay in full the attorney fees of private counsel appointed to represent the indigent parents in juvenile protection proceedings.
4. Courts’ enforcement of statutory obligations imposed on counties does not violate the Separation of Powers Clause of the Minnesota Constitution.
Minnesota Supreme Court Affirms State Jurisdiction over Tribal Traffic Offenses
…over a dissent from Justice Alan Page. The case is State v. Davis. An excerpt:
State court has subject-matter jurisdiction over appellant‟s traffic violations because Congress has not preempted Minnesota from enforcing its traffic laws against appellant in state court.
And from the dissent:
The MCT is the governing unit federally recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the individual bands such as the Leech Lake Band and the Mille Lacs Band are merely “component reservations” of the MCT. Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 73 Fed. Reg. 18,553, 18,555 (Apr. 4, 2008). Yet the court concludes with little explanation that the MCT has no tribal interest in self-governance. Nor does the court cite any authority for the distinction it makes between Indian tribes and Indian bands. I would also note that there is no indication in this record that the MCT has no interest in self-governance or has chosen to relinquish its interest in self-governance. Absent a showing that the MCT has chosen to relinquish its interest in self-governance, it is presumptuous for us to impose such a choice on the MCT. Because we held in Stone that no exceptional circumstances exist requiring a preemption analysis for tribal members who are alleged to have been speeding on tribal territory and because Davis is an MCT member whose alleged speeding offense occurred within the MCT‟s territory, I conclude that the state has no jurisdiction over Davis.
State of Minnesota v. Losh Materials
We previously reported the Minnesota Supreme Court decision, State v. Losh, which upheld state jurisdiction over traffic offenses in Minnesota, a PL 280 state. Here are the briefs:
Minn. S. Ct. on PL280 Jurisdiction over Traffic Offenses
The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld (4-2) state court jurisdiction over a conviction for driving without a license in State v. Losh. Here is the court’s syllabus:
1. For the purposes of determining whether the State has subject-matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Public Law 280, to prosecute a tribal member who commits the offense of driving after revocation of a driver’s license, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 171.24, subd. 2 (2006), on tribal land because that offense is criminal/prohibitory, a court may consider the underlying basis for the revocation to determine whether the driving after revocation offense raises substantially different or heightened public policy concerns.
2. Driving after revocation of a driver’s license, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 171.24, subd. 2, is criminal/prohibitory when the underlying basis for the revocation was driving while impaired, based on a violation of Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1 (2006), or a failure of a test administered under the implied-consent law pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 169A.52, subd. 4 (2006).
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.