tribal court – Page 11

The federal government has been hesitant to get involved in tribal internal affairs, according to Robert Anderson, director of the Native American Law Center at the University of Washington and an enrolled member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. A group of Snoqualmie members experienced a rare legal victory in 2009 when a federal court judge overturned their banishment and disenrollment.

Disenrollment decisions are not only about membership, but also about belonging, Raquel Montoya-Lewis, chief judge of the Nooksack Tribal Court, wrote in a court decision.

“Cultural and tribal identity lay at the heart of how we know ourselves. … Belonging to a tribe gives tribal members a sense of home, of connection to a community, whether one lives there or not,” Montoya-Lewis wrote.

Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Pottawatomi — Notice for Appellate Justices

August 22, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Appellate Justices 8.2013

From the notice (read the notice for other details):

The Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians (Gun Lake Tribe) is seeking three (3) Appellate Justices to serve as the Court of Appeals body of the Tribe. The authority of the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi/Gun Lake Tribal Court of Appeals is defined by Gun Lake Tribal Judicial Ordinance. The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to hear all appeals arising from Tribal Court decisions or proceedings.

The Court of Appeals shall consist of three (3) Justices, each appointed by majority vote of the Tribal Council at a meeting at which a required quorum plus one additional Tribal Council member is present. At least two (2) of those Justices shall be attorneys who are or have been licensed to practice law before the courts of a state in the United States and who have not been disbarred from practicing law in any tribal, federal, or state court, provided, however, that if a person has been disbarred but later reinstated, such person shall be eligible. The other Justice shall be either a registered voter of the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians or an attorney who is, or has been, licensed to practice law before the courts of a state in the United States and who has not been disbarred from practicing law in any tribal, federal, or state court, provided, however, that if a person has been disbarred but later reinstated, such person shall be eligible. No Court of Appeals Justice may sit simultaneously as a Tribal Court Judge. Each Court of Appeals Justice shall be at least twenty-five (25) years of age.

All Things Considered on Prosecuting in Tribal Court

August 5, 2013ilpc

Here.

“We live here. We engage the community here. We have an understanding of the crimes and the crime scenes, and we have Hopi juries here, and it gives us an advantage in that there are some cases I believe the tribal courts can more effectively prosecute,” she [Jill Engel] says.

Update in Omaha Tribal Liquor Jurisdiction Case

August 2, 2013August 2, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment:

Village of Pender Brief

Omaha Tribe Brief

The United States and the State of Nebraska have each filed briefs on the question of whether the Omaha Tribe’s 1854 reservation has been diminished/disestablished, with the federal government supporting the tribe and the state opposing:

Federal Brief

Nebraska Brief

Prior posts here, here, and here.

Cherokee Nation Tribal Court Grants Custody to Father’s Wife and Father’s Parents in Baby Veronica Matter

July 22, 2013Adrea Korthase2 Comments

Tulsa World article here.

Federal Magistrate Decides (Non-)Indian Status of Defendant in General Crimes Act Case

July 3, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in United States v. Loera (D. Ariz.):

DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

Loera Motion to Dismiss — Indian Status

USA Response

An excerpt:

Defendant’s motion and the government’s response raise matters for the Court’s consideration which other courts have left for another day. See Means v. Navajo Nation, 432 F.3d 924, 934–35 (9th Cir.2005). The resolution of the issues requires the Court to journey into the world of “Indian Law” which has been described as a “complex patchwork of federal, state and tribal law, which is better explained by history than by logic.” United States v. Bruce, 394 F.3d 1215, 1218 (9th Cir.2005) (internal quotations omitted). Indian law has also been described as “schizophrenic”: “Federal Indian policy is, to say the least, schizophrenic. And the confusion continues to inform federal Indian law …” United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193, 219, 124 S.Ct. 1628, 1644–45 (2004) (Thomas, J., concurring).

Another:

This case presents a unique factual and jurisdictional conundrum apparently of first impression. Notwithstanding the 1990 amendments to the Indian Civil Rights Act, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq., the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe has declined to prosecute a defendant who may be an “Indian” and the Tribe’s decision is apparently based solely on the defendant’s lack of tribal membership, i.e., the Tribal Court has determined it does not have jurisdiction under its laws.

And finally:

Since its first enactment in 1817 (3 Stat. 383), additions added in 1854 (10 Stat. 270), sequent codification in 18 U.S.C. § 1152, and the enactment and amendment of the Indian Civil Rights Act, the language of section 1152 has never been amended, yet the government has entered into nine separate treaties with thirteen separate and distinct tribes obligating the federal government to remove all “bad men” from those tribes’ lands and prosecute them in federal courts when requested by the Tribe, exactly what occurred in this matter. In order to give validity to those treaties, as the Court is obligated to do, and which Congress has not repealed, and even though the treaties are with tribes other than the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, the use of the term “Indian” in section 1152 must, as Judge Sneed concluded, mean an Indian who is a tribal member. As such, should this Court have concluded Defendant was an “Indian” section 1152 would not grant him immunity from federal prosecution as he is not a tribal member.