tribal sovereign immunity

Internal Tribal Governance Dispute Dismissed by Federal Court

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Binger Operations LLC v. Edwards (W.D. Okla.):

1 Complaint

18 Caddo Motion to Dismiss

20 Smith Motion to Dismiss

32 DCT Order Granting Motions to Dismiss

An excerpt:

Binger Operations, LLC (“Binger”) filed this interpleader action against Brenda Shemayme Edwards, Phillip M. Smith, and the Caddo Tribal Council, seeking a determination of the respective rights of the defendants in interpleader (“defendants”) to receive oil and gas severance taxes. Both Mr. Smith and Ms. Edwards claim to be the Chairman of the Caddo Nation, and both have purported to file documents on behalf of the Caddo Tribal Council.1 Mr. Smith and, according to his/its motion, the Caddo Tribal Council, have moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. Ms. Edwards and, according to her/its response, the Caddo Tribal Council, have responded in support of the motion to the extent that it challenges this court’s jurisdiction. Binger has responded, and the motions are at issue.

Minnesota Supreme Court Affirms Tribal Immunity in City of Duluth v. Fond du Lad Band — UPDATED with Briefs

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in City of Duluth vs. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians. Link to oral argument video here. Briefs are not available publicly, so if anyone has them, please send along.

Here are the briefs:

08 26 13 FDL Initial Brief – FINAL

09 30 13 City of Duluth Response Brief

10 14 13 FDL Reply

An excerpt:

When an Indian band enters into a contract with a city, waives its sovereign immunity, and consents to be sued only in federal district court, a state court may go no further than interpreting contractual provisions pertaining to jurisdiction to determine whether the court has jurisdiction over a dispute arising under the contract.

Our post with a link to the Minnesota Court of Appeals decision, now reversed, is here.

Sixth Circuit Denies Sault Tribe Motion to Reconsider Stay

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

CA6 Order Denying Reconsideration

Prior posts on the stay are here and here. Panel materials here.

Second Circuit Briefs in Stockbridge-Munsee Community Lands Claims

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the briefs in Stockbridge-Munsee Community v. State of New York:

Stockbridge-Munsee Brief

Oneida Indian Nation Brief

State Brief

Stockbridge-Munsee Reply Brief

Lower court materials are here.

First Circuit Reverses Contempt Citation against Narragansett Indian Tribal Historic Preservation Office

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in the sealed case In re Grand Jury Proceedings:

13-2498-01A

An excerpt:

A venerable legal Latinism, lex non cogit ad impossibilia, teaches that the law does not compel the impossible. Guided by that august adage, we hold that a subpoena duces tecum compelling the production of documents to a now-defunct grand jury cannot be enforced by civil contempt sanctions before a successor grand jury, and we accordingly vacate the district court’s order holding the appellant in civil contempt. We reject, however, the appellant’s additional contentions that tribal sovereign immunity shielded it from subpoena and that the subpoena was unreasonably broad in scope.

A cautionary note about raising tribal immunity from a federal subpoena:

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the subpoena duces tecum was unenforceable after the expiration of the issuing grand jury. We therefore vacate the district court’s order holding NITHPO in civil contempt. In the event a subpoena similar in scope is subsequently issued and NITHPO again challenges its validity, our holdings on tribal sovereign immunity and reasonableness of the subpoena shall apply to any such proceeding.

 

Additional Update in Luckerman v. Narragansett

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are additional materials in Luckerman v. Narragansett Indian Tribe (D. R.I.):

29 Motion to Correct the Record

33-1 Response

34 DCT Order on Amending the Record

Meanwhile, the tribe has appealed the sovereign immunity issue here to the First Circuit.

Prior posts on this case are here and here.

Tenth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Cheyenne-Arapaho Suit against Bank

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes v. First Bank & Trust.

Briefs and lower court are here.

Federal Court Holds Tribal Courts May Adjudicate Claims against On-Rez Public Schools in North Dakota

Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here are the materials in Belcourt Public School District v. Davis (D. N.D.):

19 Belcourt Motion for Summary J

19-6 TMAC Appellate Decision

26 Defendants Response

27 Belcourt Reply

33 DCT Order

And here is the opinion in Fort Yates Public School District #4 v. Murphy (D. N.D.):

40 DCT Order

We posted materials in this matter here.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Rule 19 Dismissal in Friends of Amador County v. Jewell

Matthew L.M. Fletcher5 Comments

Here is the unpublished opinion. An excerpt:

The district court concluded next that joinder would not be feasible because the Tribe enjoys sovereign immunity as a federally recognized Indian tribe. Appellants challenge the validity of the Tribe’s federally recognized status but concede its existence. Indeed, the Tribe has been federally recognized since at least 1985, see Indian Tribal Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services, 50 Fed. Reg. 6055-02 (Feb. 13, 1985), and it thus has “the immunities and privileges available to other federally acknowledged Indian tribes by virtue of their government-to-government relationship with the United States,” Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from the Board of Indian Affairs, 77 Fed. Reg. 47,868-01 (Aug. 10, 2012).

Briefs and link to oral argument audio here.

Lower court materials here.

Ute Tribe Prevails in Tenth Circuit Immunity Decision on Third Party Subpoenas/Collateral Order Doctrine

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Bonnet v. Ute Indian Tribe:

CA10 Opinion

An excerpt:

The issue before us is whether a subpoena duces tecum served on a non-party Tribe and seeking documents relevant to a civil suit in federal court is itself a “suit” against the Tribe triggering tribal sovereign immunity. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, pursuant to the collateral order doctrine, we hold the answer is yes. We therefore reverse the district court’s denial of the Tribe’s motion to quash based on tribal immunity.

And the briefs:

Ute Opening Brief

Bonnet Brief

Ute Reply

Lower court materials here.