Paul Spruhan has posted “Guardians of Tribal Tradition: Litigation in the Navajo Nation” in Litigation, The Journal of ABA Section of Litigation.
tribal courts
Tulalip Tribal Court Denies Summary Judgment, Affirms In Rem Jurisdiction Versus State over Items Seized Pursuant to Search Warrant
Here are the materials in Shopbell v. Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (Tulalip Tribal Court):
4-6-17 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of Motion
4-24-17 Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Re Probable Cause
5-2-17 Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
5-4-17 Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment Re Probable Cause
5-12-17 Defendants’ Reply in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment
5-15-17 Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
NAICJA/NCJFJC Free Webinar on Peacemaking, April 24
Here: PM Announcement
Navajo Sues Interior over Judiciary Funding
Here is the complaint in Navajo Nation v. United States (D.D.C.):
On the Minnesota SCT Rule 10 Proposed Revisions on Recognizing Tribal Court Orders and Judgments
Link: Proposed Rule 10
The Minnesota Tribal Court State Court forum is petitioning the Minnesota Supreme Court for a new and improved rule on the recognition of tribal court judgments in state courts, known as Rule 10 of the Minnesota General Rules of Practice. The existing rule was adopted in 2003, and it fell far short of what advocates sought at the time. At the time, Professor Washburn was critical of the outcome as not being sufficiently respectful of tribal court judgments. In this article, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2935279, Washburn and Chloe Thompson explained that the rule was far less respectful than Arizona’s equivalent rule and speculated as to why Minnesota’s rule would be less respectful than Arizona’s. Washburn characterized Rule 10 as providing wide discretion and little guidance to Minnesota District Courts. According to a letter submitted on the rule, Professor Washburn finds the new proposed Rule 10 to be much improved and believes that it addresses most of the concerns about the previous rule. He urges the Minnesota Supreme Court to adopt the improved rule.
The comment period closes today. The next step is consideration of the petition by the Minnesota Supreme Court Advisory Committee on General Rules of Practice. A public hearing on the petition will be held by the advisory committee on March 31, 2017 at the Minnesota Judicial Center.
Motion for TRO Rejected in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. LaCounte
Here are the materials in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. LaCounte (D. Mont.):
147 DCT Order Denying Motion for TRO
An excerpt:
Negotiations concerning the operation of the two courts are ongoing. Interactions between the courts are, and will be, varied, continual, and context-specific. An order from the Court would prove an undesirable and perhaps unwieldy solution, particularly as opposed to a protocol negotiated by the parties. The Court especially is not the proper arbiter for the dispute while the parties continue to negotiate an MOU. An MOU would provide a set protocol that the Court could evaluate. The addition of an MOU to the factual record would aid the Court in coming to a more accurate, useful resolution to the issues presented.
Alaska Civil Diversion Agreement with Anvik Tribe in Alaska
The agreement allows for law enforcement officers in Alaska to refer certain misdemeanor crimes and offenses to participating tribal courts for restorative justice sentencing. It’s the first of its kind agreement in Alaska and the Anvik tribe located in Anvik, AK became the first tribe to enter into this agreement with the State. Please let me know if you would like additional information. Thanks!
The following link is to an article in the local Fairbanks, AK newspaper regarding the Civil Diversion Agreement.
The following link is to the Civil Diversion Agreement itself on the State of Alaska’s website.
http://law.alaska.gov/pdf/press/170110-CivilDiversionAgreement.pdf
Tulalip Tribal Court Holds State Immune to Suit in Tribal Court
Here is the opinion in Shopbell v. State of Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife:
We posted materials on this case here.
Wisconsin Disretionary Transfer Rule to be Indefinitely Extended
According to Larry Nesper:
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin today, June 21, in an administrative hearing, voted to indefinitely extend the Discretionary Transfer Rule permitting state court judges to transfer cases to tribal court on their own authority. It had been scheduled for review after five years. The rule has been most extensively used by the Oneida Nation which has transferred 1400 child support cases in the last several years out of county courts and into tribal court. The order will be out by the end of the term this summer.
Comments on this rule going back to 2007 are here.
The Dark Side of the Bryant Victory
From the Marshall Project, “Poor on a Native American Reservation? Good Luck Getting a Lawyer.”
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.