Nooksack Update: Disenrollees File 9th Circuit Appeal; State Superior Court Further Stays Eviction

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the District Court’s dismissal of their civil RICO action to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Rabang v. Kelly (Rabang II). Pending that appeal, the Whatcom County Superior Court further stayed a Nooksack Tribal Court housing eviction proceeding.

Here:

7-31-18 Defendant Chief Judge Raymond G Dodge Jr’s Notice of Decision

8-23-18 Declaration of Rachel Saimons in Support of Defendant Dodge’s Motion to Re-Note Motion to Dismiss

8-23-18 Defendant Chief Judge Raymond G Dodge Jr’s Motion to Re-Note Motion to Dismiss

8-23-18 Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss

8-31-18 Declaration of Gabriel Galanda In Support of Plaintiffs’ Response In Opposition to Defendants’ Renewed Motions to Dismiss

8-31-18 Plaintiffs’ Response In Opposition to Defendants’ Renewed Motions to Dismiss

9-10-18 Order Granting Stipulated Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

168 8-24-18 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal

Nooksack: Three New Disenrollment-Related Lawsuits

Doucette v. Zinke (W.D. Wash):

complaint

Belmont v. BIA Acting Northwest Regional Director (IBIA):
Tageant v. Smith (Wash. Sup. Ct.):

Julia Stinson on Disenrollment as Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Julia M. Stinson has posted “When Tribal Disenrollment Becomes Cruel and Unusual” on SSRN. The article is forthcoming in the Nebraska Law Review. Here is the abstract:

In the past two decades, Native American tribes have disenrolled—permanently removed from tribal citizenship—thousands of tribal members, mainly because of lineage concerns or for political reasons. In these instances, scholars generally decry disenrollment. But there is a growing trend to disenroll tribal citizens for criminal conduct, and scholars (and even tribal members themselves) assume this is proper. This paper argues that tribal disenrollment for criminal conduct violates the Indian Civil Rights Act’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

The Supreme Court held that denationalization as a result of criminal conduct is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Congress applied that same prohibition to Native American tribes in the Indian Civil Rights Act. And traditionally, tribes, who had the inherent power to impose any sanction necessary, focused on restoring harmony rather than punishing offenders; permanent expulsion was almost never imposed. Tribes are nations, and tribal membership is a voluntary compact equivalent in all meaningful respects to United States citizenship—hence, tribes cannot disenroll members for criminal behavior. Yet Congress also severely limited tribes’ ability to punish criminal defendants by capping incarceration at one year, and crime in Indian country is a significant problem. To allow tribes to battle crime and yet protect against cruel and unusual punishment, Congress should remove the limit on incarceration and individual tribal members can decide whether they are willing to submit to their tribe’s inherent power—and greater sentences—or voluntarily renounce their tribal citizenship.

Saginaw Chippewa Disenrollees Sue Interior for Failure to Enforce the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan Distribution of Judgment Funds Act

Here is the complaint in Cavazos v. Zinke (D.D.C.):

tribal-members-lawsuit

The plaintiffs are represented by Gerald Torres, Michael Sliger, and Hope Babcock.

News coverage: “Expelled Tribe Members Say Feds Did Nothing to Protect Their Rights

Update:

10-1 Motion to Dismiss

12 Opposition

13 reply

Update in Rabang v. Kelly

Here are new docs:

4-11-18 Order Denying Defendants’ Rule 62.1 Motion For Indicative Ruling Regarding Dismissal

4-11-18 Rabang v. Kelly (9th Cir.) Kelly Appellants’ Motion For Voluntary Dismissal Of Appeal

4-11-18 Rabang v. Kelly (9th Cir.) Notice of District Court Decision Denying Appellants’ Motion For Indicative Ruling

4-11-18 Rabang v. Kelly (W.D. Wash.) Order Denying Defendants’ Rule 62.1 Motion For Indicative Ruling Regarding Dismissal