From The Atlantic, here.
The related article in the Stanford Law Review Online is here.
tribal jurisdiction over nonmembers
Stanford Law Review Online Publishes “Indian Lives Matter — Pandemics and Inherent Tribal Powers”
Fletcher’s paper, “Indian Lives Matter — Pandemics and Inherent Tribal Powers,” is now available online (PDF).
News Coverage of Efforts by Tribes to Self-Isolate in the Face of Pressure of Nonmembers to Enter Indian Lands
Al Jazeera: “As Native peoples self-isolate, outsiders are still demanding in”
CBS: “Longstanding issues put Native American communities at high COVID-19 risk”
Parker Pioneer: “A look at Montana v. U.S., the court case in CRIT’s ‘stay-at-home’ order“//”CRIT says Governor’s order doesn’t apply in Town of Parker, Tribal Council’s resolution does”
Parker Live: “CRIT Attorney General hits back at Town of Parker over COVID-19 orders”
ABC: “Isolated indigenous tribes risk extinction from coronavirus, experts say”
More ammo for the paper on the pandemic and Montana 2….
Fletcher on the Pandemic and Tribal Powers over Nonmembers
I posted a draft paper, “Indian Lives Matter: Pandemics and Inherent Tribal Powers,” on SSRN.
Here is the introduction to the paper:
America’s reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 is a microcosm of how Americans see the nation. It is a story of rugged individualism versus community needs. Many Americans insist on freedom to do as they please, rigorously pushing back on government. But in an environment where small numbers of individuals can easily transmit a deadly infection to others, creating the exponential increase in infections, rugged individualism is a terrible threat. Pandemics, luckily for humans, do not seem to occur all that frequently, but when they do occur, they can dramatically alter human history.
Indian people know all too well the impact of pandemics on human populations, having barely survived smallpox outbreaks and other diseases transmitted during the generations of early contact between themselves and Europeans. Indian people also suffered disproportionately from the last pandemic to hit the United States about a century ago. Some things have changed for the better for Indian people, namely tribal self-governance, but many things are not much better, including the public health situation of many Indian people.
Modern tribal governments navigate a tricky legal and political environment. While tribal governments have power to govern their own citizens, nonmembers are everywhere in Indian country, and the courts are skeptical of tribal authority over nonmembers. For example, after the Navajo Nation announced a 57-hour curfew for the weekend of April 10-13, 2020 (Easter weekend for many), the sheriff’s offices of Cibola and McKinley counties sent letters to the tribe insisting that the tribe refrain from citing nonmembers during the curfew, further insisting that nonmembers are governed more “fully” by the Governor of the State of New Mexico. Further, the fact that it is the county sheriff’s offices – and not counsel for the nonmembers – sending the letters is a deeply consequential signal to the tribal government. Of course, allowing nonmembers freedom to flout the tribe’s curfew defeats the purpose of the curfew. During a pandemic, the limitations on powers of tribal government could lead to tragedy.
This short essay is designed to lay down the argument favoring tribal regulatory powers over nonmembers in Indian country during a pandemic. It should be an easy argument, but federal Indian law makes it more complicated than it should be.
Here are some of the primary source documents noted in the paper:
McKinley County Sheriff Letter
FMC Corp. v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Cert Petition [Updated]
Here:
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.
Update:
Ninth Circuit Affirms Tribal Jurisdiction in FMC v. Shoshone-Bannock
SCOTUS Denies Cert in Mitchell v. Tulalip; Teck Metals v. Colville; and King Mountain Tobacco
Wilson v. Horton’s Towing Cert Petition [Montana; Exhaustion; Civil Forfeiture]
Here:
Questions presented:
1. Does an Indian Tribe have authority under the second exception of Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), to forfeit automobiles owned by non Native Americans for violation of tribal drug laws while on tribal land?
2. If so, does the Tribe have authority to seize a motor vehicle off reservation if it has probable cause to believe that the automobile previously contained illegal drugs while on tribal lands?
Lower court materials here.
Mitchell v. Tulalip Tribes Cert Petition
Here:
UPDATE:
Question presented:
Does sovereign immunity bar the federal courts’ consideration of a declaratory judgment action to determine whether Respondent Tribes can exercise regulatory/taxing authority over real property owned in fee by Petitioners non-Indians, pursuant to allotments that were authorized by the Tribes’ treaty with the United States?
Lower court materials here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.