tribal member disenrollments – Page 14

The federal government has been hesitant to get involved in tribal internal affairs, according to Robert Anderson, director of the Native American Law Center at the University of Washington and an enrolled member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. A group of Snoqualmie members experienced a rare legal victory in 2009 when a federal court judge overturned their banishment and disenrollment.

Disenrollment decisions are not only about membership, but also about belonging, Raquel Montoya-Lewis, chief judge of the Nooksack Tribal Court, wrote in a court decision.

“Cultural and tribal identity lay at the heart of how we know ourselves. … Belonging to a tribe gives tribal members a sense of home, of connection to a community, whether one lives there or not,” Montoya-Lewis wrote.

Update on Nooksack Disenrollments — Restart on Disenrollment Process

August 21, 2013August 22, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

News coverage on the impact of the disenrollments on school-age children here.

Materials in Roberts v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):

Roberts v. Kelly Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

Roberts v. Kelly Declaration of Gabriel S. Galanda In Support of TRO Motion wExhibits

Roberts v. Kelly Motion to Disqualify Chief Judge Raquel Montoya Lewis

Roberts v. Kelly Order Denying Emergency Temporary Order Hearing

Roberts v. Kelly Order Denying Motion To Disqualify Hon. Raquel Montoya-Lewis

Materials in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack Ct. App.):

Lomeli Notice of Appeal

Motion for Clarification or Relief from Stay of Proceedings

Order on Motion for Clarification from Stay of Proceedings

Nooksack COA Stays Disenrollment Proceedings Pending Appeal

August 16, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the news coverage.

And the materials in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Ct. App.):

Emergency Motion for Stay of Tribal Court Judgment

Order Granting Appellate Review and Staying Proceedings

And a new suit in tribal court, with a sitting council member as lead plaintiff, Roberts v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Ct.):

Roberts v. Kelly Complaint w Appendices

Prior posts here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Update in Nooksack Disenrollment Matter — Second Amended Complaint Dismissed

August 8, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are additional materials in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):

Kelly Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Nooksack Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Kelly Defendants’ Reply on Motion to Dismiss

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint 8-6-2013

An excerpt:

As Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs Kevin Washburn wrote recently, “in the exercise of sovereignty and self-governance, tribes have the right, like other governments, to make good decisions, bad decisions, and decisions with which others may not agree.” Aguayo, page 1. 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 Court 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.