Here:
CA5 panel materials are here.
tribal court exhaustion doctrine
Supreme Court Denies Grand Canyon Skywalk Development Cert Petition
Here is today’s order list.
Cert petition was here.
Ninth Circuit Holds Shoshone-Bannock Land Use Office/Court Has No Jurisdiction over Nonmember on Nonmember Lands
Here is the opinion in Evans v. Shoshone-Bannock Land Use Policy Commission. The court’s syllabus:
Reversing in the district court’s denial of a motion for preliminary injunction and dismissal of an action seeking to enjoin tribal court proceedings, the panel held that the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes lacked the power to regulate the land use of the plaintiff, a nonmember who owned land in fee simple within the Fort Hall Reservation.
The panel held that the plaintiff was not required to exhaust tribal remedies before bringing suit in federal court because the tribal court plainly lacked jurisdiction. The panel held that because the plaintiff was an owner of non-Indian fee land, the Tribes’ efforts to regulate him were presumptively invalid under Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), and an exception for the regulation of nonmember activity that directly affects a tribe’s political integrity, economic security, health, or welfare did not apply. The panel reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Briefs and lower court materials are here.
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Challenge to Navajo Labor Jurisdiction over Window Rock Unified School District
Here are the briefs in Window Rock Unified School District v. Reeves:
Navajo Nation Labor Commission Opening Brief
Navajo Nation Supreme Court Amicus Brief
Navajo Nation Labor Commission Reply Brief
Lower court materials here.
Grand Canyon Resort Corp. Cert Opposition in Skywalk Case
Lummi Tribe Prevails in Indian Child Welfare Matter involving Tribal Court Jurisdiction
Here are the materials in Jones v. Lummi Tribal Court (W.D. Wash.):
Updated Materials in Heldt v. Payday Financial — Amended Complaint
Split Fifth Circuit Panel Affirms Tribal Civil Jurisdiction over Nonmember in Dolgencorp v. Miss. Choctaw
Here is the opinion. An excerpt:
Dolgencorp, Inc. and Dollar General Corp. (collectively “Dolgencorp”) brought an action in the district court seeking to enjoin John Doe, a member of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, and other defendants (collectively “the tribal defendants”) from adjudicating tort claims against Dolgencorp in the Choctaw tribal court. The district court denied Dolgencorp’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of the tribal defendants, concluding that the tribal court may properly exercise jurisdiction over Doe’s claims. Because we agree that Dolgencorp’s consensual relationship with Doe gives rise to tribal court jurisdiction over Doe’s claims under Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 564-66 (1981), we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.
Briefs are here.
Lower court decision and materials here.
Federal Court Orders Tribal Exhaustion in Coeur d’Alene Reservation Waste Dumping
Here are the materials in St. Isidore Farm LLC v. Coeur D’Alene Tribe of Indians (D. Idaho):
3-1 St. Isadore Motion for TRO
21 Coeur d’Alene Motion to Dismiss
61 DCT Order Granting Motion to Dismiss
News coverage here.
Grand Canyon Skywalk Development Cert Petition
Here is the cert petition in the case now captioned Grand Canyon Skywalk Development LLC v. Grand Canyon Resort Development Corporation:
Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari
Questions presented:
1. Does Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981) apply on tribal land, as this Court suggested in Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353, 358 (2001), or does this Court acquiesce in the Ninth Circuit’s contrary decision in Water Wheel Camp Recreation Area v. LaRance, 642 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2011)?
2. Does a non-tribal member consent to tribal jurisdiction under Montana even when that “consent” comes in the form of a contract with a tribal corporation which expressly provides that disputes will be resolved through binding arbitration, not in tribal court, and where the tribal enterprise has expressly waived its sovereign immunity to permit arbitration?
3. Are intangible contract rights of a Nevada corporation located on federal land held in trust for the Tribe and thus subject to the Tribe’s eminent domain powers because they relate to activities on tribal land?
4. Does the bad-faith exception to National Farmers exhaustion require a showing that the tribal court acted in bad faith, or is it sufficient to demonstrate that the Tribe’s governing council (Tribal Council) did so and that the Tribe’s judiciary lacked judicial independence?
Lower court materials here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.