Oklahoma Federal Court Dismisses Nonmember Company’s Objection to Tribal Court Jurisdiction

Here are the materials in Monster Tech. Group v. Eller (W.D. Okla.):

1 Complaint

1-1 Agreement

1-2 AAA Petition

1-3 Iowa Tribal Court Injunction

4-1 Monster Group Motion

5 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint without Prejudice

7-1 Motion for Reconsideration

8 DCT Order Denying Reconsideration

Montana Federal Court Denies Nonmember Holdover Tenant’s Effort to Avoid Tribal Court

Here are the materials so far in Eagle Bear Inc. v. Blackfeet Indian Nation (D. Mont.):

1 Complaint

1-3 Blackfeet Tribal Court Complaint

5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction

14 Response to 5

15 Reply

22 Motion to Dismiss

25 Response

26 Reply

27 DCT Order

California COA Dismisses Coyote Valley Band Appeals under Disentitlement Doctrine

Here are the materials in Findleton v. Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians:

A156459 [opinion]

Findleton Brief A156459

Findleton Brief A158171 A158172 A158173

Tribe Brief A156459

Tribe Brief A158171 A158172 A158173

Tribe Brief A159823

Tribe Reply A156459

Tribe Reply A158171 A158172 A158173

Ute Tribe Sanctioned for Abuse of Judicial Process/Acting in Bad Faith

Here are the new materials in the long-running Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (D. Utah):

205 Becker Notice of Intent to Subpoena

206 Tribe Motion to Quash

210 Opposition

211 Reply

221 DCT Order to Show Cause

228 Response to Order to Show Cause

234 Becker Memorandum re Tribe’s Documents

235 Becker Response to Order re Sanctions against Tribe

238 Jurrius Reply

243 Tribe Reply

244-1 Becker Surreply

260 DCt Order

261 DCT Order re Unsealing

261-1 Arbitration Statement of Claims

261-2 Jurrius Counterclaims

261-3 Tribe’s Response

261-4 Settlement Agreement

262 Becker Statement of Fees

263 Jurrius Statement of Fees

269 DCT Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration

270 Tribe Motion to Reconsider 260

273 Tribe Objection to 263

274 Tribe Objection to 262

276 Opposition to 270

280 Response to 273

281 Reply in Support of 270

Prior post here.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in FMC Corp. v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Here is today’s order list.

The cert stage briefs in the FMC case are here.

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Orders Exhaustion (again) of Tribal Remedies in Suit against LDS

Here are the materials in Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. F.D. (D. Utah):

1-1 Federal Complaint

10 FD Motion to Dismiss

11 Notice of Removal

19 Motion to Remand

19-1 DCT Stay Order

19-2 Redacted Complaint

32 FD Opposition

40 Reply

43 DCT Order

A related case, Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. B.N. (D. Utah), is stayed:

2 Complaint

2-1 BN Tribal Court Complaint

2-2 Window Rock DCT Order on Motion to Dismiss

2-3 Navajo SCT Opinion

17 BN Motion to Dismiss

23 Opposition

24 Reply

45 DCT Stay Order

Our prior post on the first order to exhaust is here.

Alex Skibine on the Tribal Right to Exclude Nonmembers

Alexander Tallchief Skibine has posted “The Tribal Right to Exclude Non-Tribal Members from Indian-Owned Lands,” forthcoming from the American Indian Law Review, on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

In 1981, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Montana v. United States, severely restricting the ability of Indian Tribes to assume civil regulatory and adjudicatory jurisdiction over non-tribal members for activities taking place on non-Indian lands within Indian reservations. The Court in Montana stated that “it could readily agree” with the Court of Appeals’ holding that the tribe could regulate the conduct of non-member on tribal lands. Yet, twenty years later, the Court issued its opinion in Nevada v. Hicks holding that in certain circumstances, the jurisdiction of Indian tribes could also be limited even if the activities of the non-members took place on Indian-owned lands.

It has been almost twenty years since Hicks and because of the cryptic and fractured nature of that decision, the federal circuits are divided and still trying to figure out under what circumstances tribal civil jurisdiction over non-members should be restricted when these activities take place on Indian-owned lands.

In this Article, I argue that among all the possible interpretations of Hicks, the one adopted by the Ninth Circuit makes the most sense. Under that interpretation, the so-called Montana framework used to divest tribes of jurisdiction is not applicable to cases where a tribe has retained the right to exclude. I argue that Hicks can be reasonably conceptualized as endorsing the 9th Circuit methodology. However, I also argue that Hicks should have been decided as a state jurisdiction cases and not a tribal divestiture of inherent sovereignty case. Re-imagining Hicks as a state jurisdiction case would not have changed the outcome but would have avoided the last twenty years of confusion surrounding how Hicks should be interpreted.

Highly recommended!

Federal Court Refuses to Enforce Ute Tribal Court Order over Water Rights

Here are the materials in Ute Indian Tribe v. McKee (D. Utah):

55 Tribe Motion for Summary Judgment

55-1 Volume I of Appendix

60 McKee Cross-Motion

64 Ute Reply

68 McKee Reply

89 DCT Order

Prior post here.