Here are the materials in the pending motion to dismiss:
UPDATE (8/16/12): Hopi Reply
The opinion and other materials in Dish Network’s motion for a preliminary injunction in a similar case out of North Dakota are here.
tribal court jurisdiction
Hopi Tribe Moves to Dismiss Dish Network Effort to Avoid Tribal Jurisdiction
Here is the motion in Dish Network v. Tewa (D. Ariz.):
The complaint is here.
Guest Post by Frank Pommersheim on the Recent Federal Court Decision Affirming Flandreau Tribal Court Jurisdiction over Nonmember Business
The federal district court decision of Judge Schreier that denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction in the case of Fox Drywall and Plastering, Inc. v. Sioux Falls Construction was a ringing endorsement of the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribal Court of Appeals decision in this case. It is one of the few (and perhaps only) federal court decisions indicating that the tribal court’s subject matter jurisdiction over non-Indians in the Montana context was so certain that the plaintiffs were not entitled to injunctive relief in that they could not show the likelihood of prevailing on the merits. Judge Schreier also noted that “there is a significant public interest in recognizing a tribe’s sovereign right to regulate activities by non-members on tribal trust land and a tribal court’s right to enforce those regulations, as long as that regulation falls within the confines of Montana” (p. 33).
Here is the tribal appellate decision at issue: Flandreau COA Decision II
And the rest of the materials in the case are here.
Federal Court Denies Nonmember Injunction Motion in Flandreau Tribal Court Jurisdiction Dispute
Here are the materials in Fox Drywall & Plastering Inc. v. Marshall (D. S.D.):
Tribal Court Materials:
Flandreau Trial Court Decision I
Dish Network Sues Hopi Revenue Agency to Avoid Business Registration/Tribal Court Jurisdiction
Here:
Alaska Native Regional Corporation Seeks Injunction Against Karluk Tribal Court Judge and Tribal Attorney
Story from Courthouse News Service is here.
VAWA Reauthorization Bill Close to Senate Floor Vote
Here is the Congressional report that accompanies the bill —
Tribal Employee Suit against Tribal Insurer: Tribal Court Jurisdiction Issues in New Case
Here are the materials in Herrera v. Alliant Specialty Insurance Services (D. Colo.):
Alliant Notice of Removal to Federal Court
Alliant Removal Notice Exhibit
DCT Order Concerning Motion to Dismiss
From the order:
In this case the plaintiff alleges that she was employed by the Southern Ute Tribe and the Southern Ute Tribe Growth Fund. However, she does not specify whether her employment was within or outside the confines of the reservation. The defendants seem to assume that the plaintiff’s employment was within the confines of the reservation. However, the defendants do not provide any declarations or other evidence to support this assumption. The locus of the plaintiff’s employment is a potentially pivotal jurisdictional fact.
The issues outlined above relate directly to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Those issues must be resolved before the court may address other issues presented in the motion to dismiss. Thus, I deny the motion without prejudice and grant [8] the defendants an opportunity to file a renewed motion that addressing the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. To the extent specific facts are relevant to the determination of the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, I note that the “court has wide discretion to allow affidavits, other documents, and a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts under Rule 12(b)(1).” Holt v. United States, 46 F.3d 1000, 1003 (10th Cir. 1995). If the defendants choose to file a renewed motion to dismiss, I direct the defendants to address the scope and limits of tribal jurisdiction, as outlined in Montana v. U.S., 450 U.S. 544, 565 (1981), MacArthur v. San Juan County, 497 F.3d 1057, 1068 (10th cir. 2007), and related cases. Of course, the analysis of this issue must be focused on the jurisdictional facts of this case.
Update on VAWA Reauthorization & Tribal Jurisdiction — Crunch Time
Here is some of the latest information on Congress’ efforts to Reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The VAWA Reauthorization, S. 1925, includes provisions that would restore tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians for purposes of domestic and dating violence. S. 1925 currently has 58 co-sponsors, including all 51 Ds, 2 Independents, and Republican Senators Crapo, Kirk, Murkowski, Collins, and Scott Brown. Senator Reid has indicated that he will bring the bill to the floor with 60 co-sponsors. Timing wise, it looks like mid-April, if there are 60.
As we noted on Turtle Talk in early February, Senator Grassley voiced his opposition to the tribal jurisdictional provisions. With S. 1925 close to Senate floor consideration, a small group of Republicans are pressuring Rs on the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and those Rs that have co-sponsored the bill–including Senators Crapo, Murkowski, Hoeven, Johanns, McCain, and Barrasso–to oppose the tribal provisions. Specifically, they are working to strip the tribal jurisdiction provisions in Sections 904 and 905 before permitting the bill to move forward.
We are told this group is attempting to racialize the issue, by attacking the credibility of tribal courts, lack of protections to non-Indian suspects of abuse, and the suspected non-Indian abusers’ voting rights in tribal elections. Several other arguments are being raised, including: Congress doesn’t have the authority (despite Lara); flooding federal courts with habeas petitions; among others.
This group of senate offices are working behind the scenes. Now is the time for tribal attorneys, judges, and others to push to bring this historic legislation to the Senate floor, and to reach final passage in the Senate with the tribal provisions (Title IX) fully intact.
Two New Tribal Court Opinions from Turtle Mountain and Mille Lacs
The first, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians v. Williams, involves a facial challenge to the tribal exclusion ordinance:
The second, Davis v. Poitra, consolidated with Malaterre v. Belcourt School Dist. No. 7, involves tribal court jurisdiction over claims brought against the school district:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.