subject matter jurisdiction

Wash. SCT Decides Outsource Servs. Mgmt. v. Nooksack Bus. Corp.

August 21, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion.

An excerpt:

Washington State courts have jurisdiction over civil cases arising on Indian reservations as long as it does not infringe on the sovereignty of the tribe. At issue in this case is whether Washington State courts have jurisdiction over a civil case arising out of a contract in which the tribal corporation waived its sovereign immunity and consented to jurisdiction in Washington State courts. We hold that it does not infringe on the sovereignty of the tribe to honor its own corporation’s decision to enter into a contract providing for jurisdiction in Washington State courts.

Briefs and other materials here.

Nooksack Petition for Review in Sovereign Immunity Appeal

August 5, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in the petition stage of Outsource Services Management LLC v. Nooksack Business Corp.:

Nooksack Petition for Review + Appendix

Answer to Petition for Review

Lower court materials here.

Washington COA Holds State Courts Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction over Tribal Corporation

January 15, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher6 Comments

Here is the opinion in Outsource Services Management v. Nooksack Business Corporation:

Wash COA Opinion

And the briefs:

Outsource Services Management, Respondent v. Nooksack Business Corporation, Appellant
Case Number – 67050-6
Hearing Date – 09/20/2012

New Mexico’s Sex Offender Law Not Applicable in Indian Country

June 10, 2009June 10, 2009Kate Fort

The New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled that Indians living in Indian Country, not employed or in school outside of Indian Country who were convicted of sex offenses in a court other than a New Mexico court, are not required to register on the New Mexico sex offender list as required by New Mexico law.

The specific question presented then is whether the two statutes [42 U.S.C. § 14071 (1998), as amended by “Megan’s Law” ]can be deemed an express statement by Congress that state sex offender registration laws shall apply in Indian country. We hold that they cannot. The language of the statutes betrays no indication that Congress intended the term “resident” by itself to override historically recognized and accepted limits on the reach of state criminal and regulatory law in Indian country. The type of language specifically referring to Indians and Indian
tribes which would support a conclusion that Congress intended to override tribal sovereignty is simply missing.

New York Times coverage

Opinion

Maine SCT Requires Seneca Tobacco Wholesaler to Acquire Maine License

February 11, 2009February 11, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Maine Supreme Court ruled that Seneca Nation of Indians members doing business in Maine must acquire a state license to sell tobacco. Here is the opinion in Dept. of Health and Human Services v. Maybee. An excerpt:

Scott B. Maybee appeals from an order entered in the Superior Court (Kennebec County, Marden, J.) denying his motion for summary judgment and granting a summary judgment in favor of the Department of Health and Human Services. The Department brought a civil enforcement action pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 1555-C(8 ) (2008 ) because Maybee failed to obtain a retail tobacco vendor license in violation of 22 M.R.S. § 1555-C(1) (2008 ). Maybee contends that because he conducts his tobacco delivery business from a location within the boundaries of an Indian reservation in New York State, the courts of Maine do not have subject matter jurisdiction, and the Maine vendor license requirement is preempted by federal law. Because subject matter jurisdiction exists and the Maine statute is not preempted, we affirm.

Dollar Douglas v. Dry Creek — Enrollment Dispute

February 1, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in this enrollment-related case:

report-and-recommendations-dollar-douglas

dct-order-adopting-report-and-recommendations-dollar-douglas

Murphy v. Kickapoo Tribe — CA10 Affirms Dismissal of Employment Claims

January 28, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion. An excerpt:

Terry Murphy and Roger Lackey brought breach of contract, retaliatory discharge, and fraud claims against the Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma (“the Tribe”) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Their claims were dismissed by the district court for lack of jurisdiction based on tribal sovereign immunity. We affirm the dismissal because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs’ claims, which arise solely under state law.

Welch v. United States — Federal Criminal Jurisdiction

December 3, 2008Matthew L.M. Fletcher

This unexceptional habeas case (I don’t think the government even responded) highlights an interesting question, one in which I assume there is not a circuit split yet. But it is a bit odd.

The habeas petitioner alleged that the United States hadn’t sufficiently proved that the victim and defendant were Indians, as required under the Major Crimes Act, an argument that hadn’t been raised below. It should have been waived under regular habeas rules. The court in footnote 2 notes that such a question would seem to suggest that perhaps the government hadn’t sufficiently proved subject matter jurisdiction, a question that cannot be waived. However, citing non-Major Crimes Act cases, the court concluded that it did not go toward jurisdiction, but as to the elements of the crime.

I wonder if there have been other Major Crimes Act habeas cases like this. If this one came out the other way, it might be that much harder for federal prosecutors to work in Indian Country.

welch-v-us-dct-opinion

Wrongful Discharge Complaint Against Stockbridge-Munsee Dismissed

September 22, 2008Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Sovereign immunity and a lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction barred this wrongful discharge complaint in Louis v. Stockbridge-Munsee Community, decided in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

stockbridge-munsee-motion-to-dismiss

louis-opposition-to-motion

stockbridge-munsee-reply

dct-dismissal-order-re-louis-v-smc