Public Law 280

Minnesota Court of Appeals Holds State Court Has No Civil Confinement Authority over Minnesota Chippewa Members

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in In the Matter of the Civil Confinement of Johnson.

The court’s syllabus:

The state does not have jurisdiction pursuant to Public Law 280 to civilly commit an enrolled member of a federally recognized Indian tribe as a sexually dangerous person under the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act.  But in the absence of express congressional consent, the state does have jurisdiction to civilly commit an enrolled member of a federally recognized Indian tribe as a sexually dangerous person under the commitment and treatment act where, as here, federal law does not preempt state jurisdiction and exceptional circumstances exist.

Minnesota Files Opposition to PL280-Related Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here: Minnesota Cert Opposition.

The petition and other materials are here.

Davis v. Minnesota Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Interesting case and petition, though I would not have described the Minnesota jurisdictional rule as “aparteid.”

Davis v. Minnesota Cert Petition

Lower court decision here.

Questions presented:

Has the State of Minnesota infringed upon the right to tribal self-government of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe?

Is the assertion of state civil regulatory authority in this matter preempted under Public Law 280 exceptions?

Continue reading →

Montana Supreme Court Decides State/Tribal Court Jurisdiction Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The case is Morigeau v. Gorman and here are the materials:

Mont. SCT Opinion

Gorman Response Brief

Morigeau Reply Brief

Minnesota COA Reverses Lower Court on Tribal Jurisdiction Issue

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Baffles me why this is unpublished….

Here is the opinion in Nason v. 1991 Buick.

The tribal interest in self-governance rests with the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians-both the incident leading to the forfeiture proceeding and the seizure of respondent’s vehicle took place on the Mille Lacs Reservation. Because respondent is enrolled in the Fond du Lac Band, the Mille Lacs Band’s interest in self-governance is not as strong over respondent. We reject respondent’s argument that we should consider the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe as a whole when assessing the strength of the interest in self-governance; that argument was considered and rejected by the supreme court in Davis, and we find nothing to distinguish respondent’s case from Davis.

Based on the state’s strong interest of promoting safety on state roads and the weaker tribal interest in self-governance present in this case, we conclude that a forfeiture proceeding against respondent in state court is not preempted by federal or tribal interests. We therefore conclude that the state has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the forfeiture action involving respondent’s vehicle.

Minnesota Court of Appeals Affirms State Criminal Jurisdiction over Tribal Members

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of a tribal member (Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Fond du Lac Band, Leech Lake resident) for firearms violations, holding that the court had jurisdiction under PL 280 in State v. Roy (opinion). Here is the court’s syllabus:

Under Public Law 280, Minnesota has jurisdiction to prosecute a tribal member for a violation of the felon-in-possession statute, Minn.Stat. § 609.165 (2004), because: (a) the inability to possess a firearm under Minn.Stat. § 609.165 is the result of the individual’s criminal conduct; (b) the prosecution does not affect the tribe’s treaty hunting rights; and (c) Minn.Stat. § 609.165 is criminal/prohibitory.

California Rancheria Can Sue in State Courts to Recover TANF Money

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

This is an unpublished disposition from the California Court of Appeals, First District — Robinson Rancheria v. Anderson.

robinson-rancheria-v-anderson-ca-coa-opinion

State of Minnesota v. Losh Materials

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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:

losh-appellant-brief

anishinaabe-legal-services-amicus-brief

state-of-minnesota-brief

losh-reply-brief

Morgan v. 2000 Volkswagen — PL280 Jurisdiction in Minnesota

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the opinion syllabus: Minnesota lacks jurisdiction to apply the civil vehicle-forfeiture law, Minn. Stat. § 169A.63 (2006), when the conduct giving rise to forfeiture occurred on an Indian reservation and the owner of the vehicle is an enrolled member of the tribe on that reservation.

Here is the opinion from the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

Wisconsin Supreme Court’s New Rule on Discretionary Transfer to Tribal Courts

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Interesting development. Wisconsin, being a PL280 state, has issues with concurrent jurisdiction. Now a state court has discretion to stay a state court proceeding if a tribal court has concurrent jurisdiction, and transfer the case to tribal court, if other factors are met.

There were three dissenters, focusing on Plains Commerce Bank. Not sure why, given that the state court has to find concurrent jurisdiction before transferring anyway. What’s the harm if the state court finds jurisdiction consistent with federal common law?

wisconsin-sct-tribal-court-transfer-rule