FMC Corp. v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Cert Petition

Here:

cert-petition.pdf

Questions presented:

1. Whether the Ninth Circuit correctly holds that tribal jurisdiction over nonmembers is established whenever a Montana exception is met, or whether, as the Seventh and Eighth Circuits have held, a court must also determine that the exercise of such jurisdiction stems from the tribe’s inherent authority to set conditions on entry, preserve tribal self-government, or control internal relations.

2. Whether the Ninth Circuit has construed the Montana exceptions to swallow the general rule that tribes lack jurisdiction over nonmembers.

Lower court materials here.

Red Cliff Ojibwe Appellate Court Rejects Nonmember Challenge to Tribal Jurisdiction

Here are the materials in Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. CenturyTel of the Midwest – Kendall, LLC:

PLD 2020-02-04 Final Decision

Briefs here.

Alex Skibine on Legislating Tribal Civil Jurisdiction over Nonmembers [now published]

Alex Tallchief Skibine has published “Incorporation Without Assimilation: Legislating Tribal Civil Jurisdiction over Nonmembers” in the UCLA Law Review Discourse.

The abstract:

For the last forty years the U.S. Supreme Court has been engaged in a measured attack on the sovereignty of Indian tribes when it comes to tribal court jurisdiction over people who are not members of the tribe asserting that jurisdiction. The U.S. Congress has already enacted legislation partially restoring some tribal courts’ criminal jurisdiction over nonmembers. This Article proposes to legislatively reconfirm the civil jurisdiction of tribal courts over such nonmembers. After examining the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in this area and summarizing the Court’s main concerns with such tribal jurisdiction, this Article explores various legislative options before settling on a preferred course of action. The proposal set forth in the last part of this Article would reconfirm tribal court civil jurisdiction over nonmembers provided the tribal courts has established personal jurisdiction over the parties. However, tribal courts’ determinations on this subject would be appealable to federal courts. Furthermore, the Article proposes to allow nonmembers being sued in tribal courts the option of removing their cases to federal courts under certain conditions.

Federal Court Orders Tribal Exhaustion in Contract Dispute with Colville

Here are the materials in Clements v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (E.D. Wash.):

1 Complaint

9 Motion to Dismiss

9-8 Colville Tribal Court Opinion

9-9 Colville COA Opinion

11 Response

12 Reply

17 DCT Order

Ninth Circuit Affirms Tribal Jurisdiction in FMC v. Shoshone-Bannock

Here is the opinion in FMC Corp. v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.

Briefs here.

UPDATE:

En Banc Petition

Amicus Brief

CA9 Order Denying Petition

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Knighton v. Cedarville Rancheria

Here is the order list.

Cert stage materials here.

Lower court materials here.

Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. CenturyTel of the Midwest – Kendall, LLC

Here are the materials so far:

pld-2019-08-02-centurytel-petition-for-writ-of-mandamus-or-alternatively-writ-of-prohibition.pdf

pld-2019-09-03-centurytel_s-brief.pdf

pld-2019-1001-tribe_s-appellate-brief-rc-v.-centurytel-of-midwest-kendall-llc.pdf

PLD 2019-09-03 Appendix to Century Link Brief

Alex Skibine on Legislating Tribal Civil Jurisdiction Over Non-Members

Alexander Tallchief Skibine has posted a very interesting paper, “Incorporation Without Assimilation: Legislating Tribal Civil Jurisdiction Over Non-Members,” on SSRN. It is forthcoming in the UCLA Law Review Discourse.

The abstract:

For the last 40 years the Supreme Court has been engaged in a measured attack on the sovereignty of Indian tribes when it comes to tribal court jurisdiction over people who are not members of the tribe asserting that jurisdiction. The Congress has already enacted legislation partially restoring some tribal courts’ criminal jurisdiction over non-members. This Essay proposes to legislatively reconfirm the civil jurisdiction of tribal courts over such non-members. After examining the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in this area and summarizing the Court’s main concerns with such tribal jurisdiction, this Essay explores various legislative options before settling on a preferred course of action. The proposal set forth in the last part of this Essay would reconfirm tribal court civil jurisdiction over non-members provided the tribal courts has established personal jurisdiction over the parties. However, tribal courts’ determinations on this subject would be appealable to federal courts. Furthermore, the Essay proposes to allow non-members being sued in tribal courts the option of removing their cases to federal courts under certain conditions.

Eighth Circuit Decides Kodiak Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. v. Burr]

Here.

Excerpt:

A dispute over the practice of flaring natural gas from oil wells fuels the legal controversy in this case: the scope of Native American tribal court authority over  nonmembers. Several members of the MHA Nation sued numerous non-tribal oil and gas companies in MHA tribal court. Those companies operate oil wells on lands within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation that have been allotted to individual tribe members but are held in trust by the federal government. The tribe members alleged the companies owed royalties from wastefully-flared gas. Some of these companies unsuccessfully contested the tribal court’s jurisdiction over them in tribal court. Then they initiated this action in federal court to enjoin the tribal court plaintiffs and tribal court judicial officials. The district court issued a preliminary injunction, and the tribal court plaintiffs and officials separately appealed. We affirm the injunction because we conclude suits over oil and gas leases on allotted trust lands are governed by federal law, not tribal law, and the tribal court lacks jurisdiction over the nonmember oil and gas companies.

Briefs here.