tribal membership

An excerpt:

To her credit, it appears that the Chief Judge was attempting to console the disenrollees and explain a decision that gravely disappointed them. Unfortunately, she also utilized words that profoundly diminished indigenous sovereignty:
“While the Court recognizes the important entitlements at stake for the proposed disenrollees, this is a fundamentally different proceeding than a loss of United States’ citizenship…. In the case of tribal disenrollees, the disenrollee loses critical and important rights, but they are not equal to the loss of U.S. citizenship. A person who is disenrolled from her tribe loses access to the privileges of tribal membership, but she is not stateless. While she loses the right, for example, to apply for and obtain tribal housing through the Tribe, her ability to obtain housing in general is unaffected. Though she loses the right to vote in tribal elections, she does not lose the right to vote in federal, state, and local elections. While the impact on the disenrollee is serious and detrimental, it is not akin to becoming stateless.” (Emphasis mine.)

Whatever one’s views on the way each Native nation chooses to exercise their sovereignty with regard to defining membership, the judge’s view of Native nationhood is chilling. By ruling that the termination of a Native person’s citizenship is “not equal to the loss of U.S. citizenship” and the loss of tribal membership is “not akin to becoming stateless,” she places Native citizenship in a position squarely inferior to U.S. citizenship. The implications are profound. It is not realistic to expect to maintain true government to government relations with states and the federal government if we begin by diminishing our own status as citizens of sovereign nations.

News Update on Nooksack Disenrollments

October 19, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Materials to be posted later.

Updated Materials in Nooksack Disenrollment Appeal — Roberts v. Kelly

September 25, 2013September 25, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Roberts v Kelly – First Amended Complaint w Appendices

Roberts v Kelly Order Accepting First Amended Complaint

Roberts v. Kelly Declaration of Gabriel S. Galanda in Support of Motion for Contempt

Roberts v. Kelly Motion for Contempt Against Kelly Defendants

Roberts v. Kelly Motion for Reconsideration of Sua Sponte September 6, 2013 Order

Roberts v. Kelly Order Denying Motion for Contempt

Bellingham Herald: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/09/19/3212992/both-nooksack-tribal-factions.html

Al Jazeera America!: http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/live-news/2013/9/tribal-families-battleefforttorejectthem.html

Update in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Salazar — Updated 9/27/13

September 6, 2013September 27, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

The court has issued an opinion in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Salazar (D. D.C.):

DCT Order

From the order:

This matter is before the Court on Intervenor-Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Mot.”), Dkt. No. 58, at 2 (Mar. 26, 2012). Intervenor-Defendant also argues that it is a required party but that its joinder is precluded by sovereign immunity, id. at 21; for clarity the Court will construe this argument as a motion to join a required party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a)(2). Because the Court agrees that Intervenor-Defendant is a required party but not that its joinder is precluded by sovereign immunity, the motion to join a required party is GRANTED. Because the Court finds Intervenor-Defendant’s remaining arguments to be largely — but not entirely — without merit, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Materials are here.

Update — additional materials:

2013 09 20 Motion for Reconsideration

2013 09 20 Motion for Stay Pending Reconsideration

DCT Order Denying Stay

Seattle Times Coverage of Nooksack Disenrollments

August 27, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Excerpt:

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.

Tenth Circuit Rejects Tribal Membership Claim by Alleged Choctaw Freedman Descendant

August 2, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Greene v. Impson.

An excerpt:

The question in this appeal is whether officials from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) violated Charles Greene’s constitutional rights by failing to provide him an application form to allow descendants of Choctaw Indian Freedman to apply for federal recognition as an Indian.

Briefs:

Greene Appellant Brief

Federal Appellee Brief

Greene Reply Brief