tribal member disenrollments – Page 12

This appeal is from the Tribal Com1’s order dismissing Appellants· second amended complaint. Appellants requested the Tribal Court enjoin members of the Nooksack Tribal Council from conducting disenrollment proceedings against them. Appellants are understandably gravely concemed at the prospect of disenrollment. We understand how serious the prospect of disenrollment is to Appellants. and how it impacts their cultural. social and political identity.

We also recognize that determining its own membership is a hallmark of a tribe’s sovereignty. It is one of the few aspects of tribal sovereignty that has withstood the relentless attempts by outside forces to tear down tribal self-governance, and one of the few aspects of tribal sovereignty that has not been eroded by the federal government.

Judges are not sages. We do not delude ourselves into believing we have the wisdom of a Solomon. It is not our role to insert ourselves into the Tribe’s political fray. or second guess the political judgments made by the Tribe’s elected leaders or its voting members, even if we believe those judgments unwise. We, like the trial court. are limited to resolving legal questions where authorized by the Tribe’s Constitution and laws.

The nature of this dispute requires us to find the delicate balance between Nooksack lawand politics keeping in mind the equal importance attached to both Tribal membership and Tribal sovereignty. The Tribe’s Constitution guides us in this difficult task. which we are duty bound to perform.

The Nooksack judiciary is not the only Nooksack governmental body whose decisions are tethered to the Tribe’s Constitution and laws. The decisions of its elected officials are as well. The trial judge expressed it well and it is worth repeating:

The Tribal Council members named in this Complaint hold an obligation to act in the best interests of the Nooksack Indian Tribe. Membership and enrollment decisions impact individual lives in the deepest possible ways and those decisions cannot be taken lightly. This Cotut recognizes the serious implications of this case and its decision on this motion and all the others that have preceded it. It is the solemn obligation of this Court to follow the law of the Nooksack Indian Tribe and it is the obligation of the Tribal Council to do the same.

Briefs are here and here.

Lower court materials are here.

Nooksack COA Briefing in Roberts v. Kelly Complete

January 8, 2014January 8, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Roberts v Kelly COA Opening Brief of Appellants

Roberts v Kelly COA Response Brief of Appellees

Roberts v Kelly COA Reply Brief of Appellants

Lower court materials here.

Year-End News Coverage of Nooksack Disenrollments Controversy

December 30, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

An excerpt:

The 306 people fighting to stay on the Nooksack Indian Tribe’s membership rolls won a rare legal victory recently when Tribal Court Chief Judge Raquel Montoya-Lewis ruled that tribal leaders had violated their rights by denying them $250-per-person Christmas checks that were mailed to everyone else in the 2,000-member tribe.

But the ruling didn’t put any extra presents under anyone’s tree. While Montoya-Lewis ruled that it was illegal to deny the 306 the same treatment as other tribe members before their legal status is determined, she also decided that she had no legal authority to order Chairman Bob Kelly and his supporters on the tribal council to issue checks to anyone.

The episode was one more example of the difficulties that the 306 have faced during the past year, as they try to get courts to block the move to strip them of tribal membership under a process known as disenrollment.

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/12/27/3392945/challenged-nooksacks-win-small.html#storylink=cpy

Ninth Circuit Affirms Injunction against BIA in San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians Membership Dispute

December 27, 2013December 27, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Alto v. Black:

CA9 Opinion

San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians Brief

Alto Answer Brief

Federal Appellee Brief

San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians Reply Brief

An excerpt:

In an appeal from the district court’s orders denying a motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction and denying motions to dismiss in an action concerning a dispute over membership in an Indian tribe, the panel affirmed in part, dismissed in part, and remanded. The San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians’ governing documents vested the United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, with ultimate authority over membership. The panel held that the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin preliminarily the enforcement of the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ order upholding the Band’s decision to disenroll descendants of Marcus Alto, Sr. from the Band, and that the Band was not a required party, because the claims underlying the preliminary injunction concern solely the propriety of final agency action. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the district court’s denial of the Band’s motion to dismiss the claims on which the injunction rests and the district court’s consequent refusal to dissolve the preliminary injunction. The panel remanded to allow the district court to clarify its order. Finally, the panel held that it lacked jurisdiction to review on interlocutory appeal the Band’s motion to dismiss the Altos’ other claims, on which the district court expressly deferred ruling.

Lower court materials here and here.

Nooksack Tribal Councilwoman Michelle Roberts on Disenrollments

December 17, 2013December 17, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “Genocide: A Year In The Life of The Nooksack 306.”

Additional news coverage here.

Fourth Suit Challening Nooksack Tribal Member Disenrollments Fails

December 12, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the updated materials in St. Germaine v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):

St Germain v. Kelly TRO Motion

St Germain v. Kelly Declaration of Michelle Roberts

St Germain v. Kelly Declaration of Rudy St. Germain

St Germain v. Kelly Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining ORder

The complaint is here.

Fourth Nooksack Tribal Court Complaint in Disenrollment Dispute; IGRA Violations Alleged

December 10, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the complaint:

Rudy St Germain v Kelly Complaint For Prospective Equitable Relief

And a press release:

Nooksack 306 Deprived Of Christmas Support

Deming, WA – Today the Nooksack 306 were forced to file yet another Tribal Court lawsuit, after it became public that on December 3, the Nooksack Tribal Council Faction led by Chairman Bob Kelly voted via secret “poll” to exclude the 306 families from $250 in Christmas support.

The families have asked the Nooksack Tribal Court to stop the Kelly Faction from excluding 306 families from the distribution, which they intend to make starting this Thursday, December 12.

“We are disgusted but not surprised that Bob Kelly and his followers would now deprive our families from Christmas support,” said Nooksack 306 family spokesperson Moreno Peralta. “The holidays are a struggle for many of us, and they know that. This is just pure insult that is being added to the deep injury we’ve already suffered this year.”

Tribal member comments on the Tribe’s Facebook page confirm that Nooksack “families in need” could really use the Christmas monies.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the equal protection clauses in the Nooksack Constitution and federal Indian Civil Rights Act, as well as the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), which prevents tribes from distributing gaming revenues on a per capita basis without a federally-approved revenue allocation plan and/or in discriminatory fashion.

The Nooksack Tribe does not have any such revenue allocation plan. The resulting violations of IGRA could result in the National Indian Gaming Commission levying civil fines against the Tribe up to $25,000 per distribution and/or closing the Tribe’s two gaming facilities.