Village of Pender v. Parker — tribal court exhaustion case

Recently, a federal judge in Nebraska stayed a federal claim that the Omaha tribe has no authority to require on-reservation, non-Indian liquor vendors to obtain a tribal license to sell liquor.

The judge noted that this appears to be a question of first impression (“While the briefing has been excellent, neither side has given me a case that is squarely on point regarding whether exhaustion is required in these circumstances. As a result, I must read the ‘tea leaves.'”), but correctly stayed the case until the tribal court had a chance to opine on the jurisdiction questions.

The 2nd amended complaint is here: Complaint

The tribal motion to dismiss is here: Motion to Dismiss

The opposition is here: Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

The reply is here: Reply Brief

The court’s stay order and opinion is here: DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

Cash Advance Rent-A-Tribes?

The Denver City and County Court thought so. In a case where the Colorado AG asked a Colorado trial court to issue subpoenas to internet money lenders owned by the Miami Nation of Oklahoma and the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska. The tribal enterprises appeared for the purpose of contesting jurisdiction, raising tribal sovereign immunity as a bar to the subpoenas. The trial court denied the order. The case is now pending before the Colorado Court of Appeals.

If the characterization of this case on page 13 of this prepared statement before the House Subcommittee on Domestic Policy of the Committee on Oversight and Domestic Reform is even half accurate (the whole “rent-a-tribe” thing), then this is an ugly case. It is an ugly case regardless.

The Colorado Court of Appeals briefs are here:

Appellant Brief

Appellee Brief

Reply Brief