Meant to post this sooner, but the CTAS applications are up and due February 28th. These grants provide can support to tribal courts and tribal justice systems:
In Fiscal Year 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) launched the Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation (CTAS) initiative, which encompassed most of the Department’s available Tribal government-specific grant programs. Through CTAS the Department has awarded over 1,600 grants totaling more than $722 million to hundreds of American Indian and Alaska Native communities. The Tribes are using these funds to enhance law enforcement, bolster justice systems, prevent and control delinquency, strengthen the juvenile justice system, serve sexual assault and elder victims, and support other efforts to combat crime.
I’ll be presenting a survey paper on tribal justice systems. Paper here.
Home of the Allegheny Alligators
I drafted a paper titled “Tribal Justice Systems” for the Allegheny College Undergraduate Conference “Democracy Realized? The Legacies of the Civil Rights Movement” and posted it on SSRN. You can download here.
Here is the abstract:
This short paper is produced for the Allegheny College conference Democracy Realized? The Legacies of the Civil Rights Movement (March 28-29, 2014).
United States Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, authored the Court’s opinion in Williams v. Lee, a decision hailed as the opening salvo in the modern era of federal Indian law. The Williams decision was the work of the liberal wing of the Court, with important input by Chief Justice Warren and Justices Brennan and Douglas. Williams, a ringing endorsement of inherent tribal governance authority, more specifically endorsed tribal justices systems as embodied in tribal courts. Without Williams and similar cases, it is unlikely that tribal governments and Congress would act to develop tribal justice systems. Williams, and the tribal courts that arose as a result, was a powerful civil rights decision that commentators rightfully have linked to Brown v. Board of Education.
This paper will survey several tribal justice systems in an effort to identify commonalities and complexities. There are hundreds of tribal justice systems in the United States; each of them unique in the details, but many of them similar to other tribal, state, and federal courts.
The paper is divided into three sections. The first two parts include a section on adversarial tribal justice systems and a section on non-adversarial tribal justice systems, often called restorative justice systems. The third part involves greater discussion of the complexities of incorporating tribal customary and traditional law into tribal common law.
In case one wonders, “Representing Justice” by Judith Resnik and Dennis Curtis influenced the paper.
Earlier this month the DOI and DOJ released the Long Term Plan to Build and Enhance Tribal Justice Systems. An excerpt:
Central Themes of the Tribal Justice Plan
The following major themes emerged from consultation and public comment:
- Establishing alternatives to incarceration should be the major focus.
- The Tribal Justice Plan should be implemented in consultation and collaboration with Tribal Leaders and should be flexible enough to allow tribes to develop strategies tailored to their specific public safety needs and tribal history and culture.
- The Tribal Justice Plan should coordinate federal, tribal, state and local government resources to support operations, programming in tribal justice systems, and critical infrastructure issues with tribal correctional facilities, fully mindful of the sovereign status of tribes in these coordination efforts.
- There should be greater coordination between DOJ and DOI with respect to awards for grants that may be used to construct tribal correctional facilities and multi-purpose justice centers (which may be provided by DOJ) and P.L. 93-638 contracts and self-governance compacts for funding operations (provided only by DOI). The Departments are committed to addressing the issue of coordination to address this and other issues related to detention in Indian country.
Additional links can be found at NCAI.
Here is the report, and the highlights.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) reports from the latest available data that from 1992 to 2001 American Indians experienced violent crimes at more than twice the national rate. The Department of the Interior (DOI) and DOJ provide support to federally recognized tribes to address tribal justice issues. Upon request, GAO analyzed (1) the challenges facing tribes in adjudicating Indian country crimes and what federal efforts exist to help address these challenges and (2) the extent to which DOI and DOJ have collaborated with each other to support tribal justice systems. To do so, GAO interviewed tribal justice officials at 12 tribes in four states and reviewed laws, including the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010, to identify federal efforts to assist tribes. GAO selected these tribes based on court structure, among other factors. Although the results cannot be generalized, they provided useful perspectives about the challenges various tribes face in adjudicating crime in Indian country. GAO also compared DOI and DOJ’s efforts against practices that can help enhance and sustain collaboration among federal agencies and standards for internal control in the federal government.
The 12 tribes GAO visited reported several challenges in adjudicating crimes in Indian country, but multiple federal efforts exist to help address some of these challenges. For example, tribes only have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by Indian offenders in Indian country. Also, until the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 (the Act) was passed in July 2010, tribes could only sentence those found guilty to up to 1 year in jail per offense. Lacking further jurisdiction and sentencing authority, tribes rely on the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices (USAO) to prosecute crime in Indian country. Generally, the tribes GAO visited reported challenges in obtaining information on prosecutions from USAOs in a timely manner. For example, tribes reported they experienced delays in obtaining information when a USAO declines to prosecute a case; these delays may affect tribes’ ability to pursue prosecution in tribal court before their statute of limitations expires. USAOs are working with tribes to improve timely notification about declinations. DOI and the tribes GAO visited also reported overcrowding at tribal detention facilities. In some instances, tribes may have to contract with other detention facilities, which can be costly. Multiple federal efforts exist to help address these challenges. For example, the Act authorizes tribes to sentence convicted offenders for up to 3 years imprisonment under certain circumstances, and encourages DOJ to appoint tribal prosecutors to assist in prosecuting Indian country criminal matters in federal court. Federal efforts also include developing a pilot program to house, in federal prison, up to 100 Indian offenders convicted in tribal courts, given the shortage of tribal detention space. DOI, through its Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and DOJ components have taken action to coordinate their efforts to support tribal court and tribal detention programs; however, the two agencies could enhance their coordination on tribal courts by strengthening their information sharing efforts. BIA and DOJ have begun to establish task forces designed to facilitate coordination on tribal court and tribal detention initiatives, but more focus has been given to coordination on tribal detention programs. For example, at the program level, BIA and DOJ have established procedures to share information when DOJ plans to construct tribal detention facilities. This helps ensure that BIA is prepared to assume responsibility to staff and operate tribal detention facilities that DOJ constructs and in turn minimizes potential waste. In contrast, BIA and DOJ have not implemented similar information sharing and coordination mechanisms for their shared activities to enhance the capacity of tribal courts to administer justice. For example, BIA has not shared information with DOJ about its assessments of tribal courts. Further, both agencies provide training and technical assistance to tribal courts; however, they are unaware as to whether there could be unnecessary duplication. Developing mechanisms to identify and share information related to tribal courts could yield potential benefits in terms of minimizing unnecessary duplication and leveraging the expertise and capacities that each agency brings. GAO recommends that the Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney General direct the relevant DOI and DOJ programs to develop mechanisms to identify and share information related to tribal courts. DOI and DOJ concurred with our recommendation.