tribal member disenrollments – Page 3

Federal Court Denies Reconsideration Motion; Plaintiff “Nooksack Tribe” Still Lacks Standing

November 15, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the new materials in Nooksack Indian Tribe v. Zinke (W.D. Wash.):

45 Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

47 Federal Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration

48 Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

54 Joint Status Report

55 Minute Order Lifting Stay

56 Order On Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

ABA Human Rights Journal: “Tribal Disenrollment Demands a Tribal Answer”

November 8, 2017November 8, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

William R. Norman Jr., Kirke Kickingbird, and Adam P. Bailey have published “Tribal Disenrollment Demands a Tribal Answer” in the ABA Human Rights Journal.

Differing Scholarly Opinions on the Ethics of Representing Tribes Engaged in Disenrollments

November 6, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is George K. Komnenos, Tribal Advocates as Ministers of Justice: A Potentially Problematic Concept, 29 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 1079 (2016): GeorgeKKomnenosTribalAdvo

An excerpt:

In June 2015, the National Native American Bar Association (NNABA) adopted its first Ethics Opinion entitled Formal Duties of Tribal Court Advocates to Ensure Due Process Afforded to All Individuals Targeted for Disenrollment (“Opinion”). The Opinion is not intended to prescribe an overarching code of professional conduct for tribal advocates. On the contrary, the Opinion serves as a reminder to attorneys and Indian bar associations that “lawyers’ ethical obligations to their licensing jurisdictions do not stop at reservation boundaries.” The Opinion puts forward the notion that tribal advocates have a dual duty: they are bound not only to their individual clients, but to the Native American community at large. According to the Opinion, “[t]he responsibility of a tribal advocate differs from that of the usual advocate; his or her duty is to further justice in the greater Native American community, not merely to win his or her case.” Though this statement is made in the context of encouraging lawyers to be vigilant in defending their clients’ constitutional rights, it bears grave dangers.

And here is Nicole Russell, “To Further Justice in the Greater Native American Community”: Ethical Responsibilities of a Tribal Attorney in Disenrollment Disputes, 30 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 911 (2017):

TO FURTHER JUSTICE IN THE GREATER NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITY ETHICAL RESPONSIBI

An excerpt:

This Note will explore the ethical challenges faced by attorneys when representing member clients in two contexts. Part I will examine the generally heightened ethical obligations facing attorneys in their representations of tribal clients. This section will provide an analysis of procedural and ethical requirements, detail their variances, and point to recent attempts by tribal coalitions to develop a more coordinated code to guide nonmember representation. The discussion will necessarily involve the Model Rules of Professional Conduct(Model Rules) and their state derivations because many tribes have used these codes as the foundation for their own standards. Part II will examine what has been termed the tribal “disenrollment epidemic” and interrogate the premise that tribal advocates have a duty to distance themselves from disenrollment proceedings. Ultimately, this Note posits that not only are tribal advocates held to more– and sometimes higher–ethical standards than those put forth in the Model Rules, but that they are barred from representing tribes in many of the ongoing disenrollment proceedings which take place without the trappings of due process.

California COA Affirms Tribal Official Immunity in Disenrollment Challenge at Elem Colony

November 3, 2017November 3, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Brown v. Garcia. PDF

An excerpt:

This case is different. As the trial court noted, Maxwell and Pistor make clear that the general rule is not dispositive if the lawsuit will encroach upon the tribe’s sovereignty. (See Maxwell, supra, 708 F.3d at p. 1088.) Here, substantial evidence established that defendants were tribal officials at the time of the alleged defamation and that they were acting within the scope of their tribal authority when they determined that, for the reasons stated in the allegedly defamatory Order of Disenrollment, plaintiffs should be disenrolled from the Tribe pursuant to a validly enacted tribal ordinance. On this record, which we have carefully reviewed, the trial court concluded that plaintiffs sought to hold defendants liable for actions they took as tribal officials in pursuing plaintiffs’ disenrollment from the Tribe on the basis of plaintiffs’ alleged unlawful acts. The court further found that adjudicating the dispute would require the court to determine whether tribal law authorized defendants to publish the Order and disenroll plaintiffs, “which itself requires an impermissible analysis of Tribal law and constitutes a determination of a non-justiciable inter-tribal dispute.”