Washington Supreme Court – Page 6

Commentary on State of Washington v. Shale Decision

May 7, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Critical commentary, I might add. From the King County Bar Association Law Bulletin:

State v Shale – Supreme Court Moves Washington in the Wrong Tribal Direction

A somewhat random excerpt:

The Court’s opinion is primarily based on its wholly mistaken belief that when Public Law 280 was passed by Congress in the 1950s and enacted and amended by Washington in the 1960s, “neither this state nor the federal government would have understood that one tribe’s court could have jurisdiction over members of another tribe.” To reach that conclusion, the Court relied upon Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990), where the U.S. Supreme Court held a tribe no longer possessed the authority to prosecute a “nonmember Indian.”

Washington SCT Briefs in Challenge to Tribal-State Tax Agreements

April 28, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the briefs in Automotive United Trades Organization v. State of Washington:

AUTO Brief

State Brief

AUTO Reply

Washington Policy Amicus

State Response to Policy Amicus

Tribal Amicus Brief

This case reached the Washington Supreme Court previously on a procedural issue, here.

Washington SCT Decides State v. Shale, State Criminal Jurisdiction under PL280 over Nonmember Indians

March 20, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion.

We posted briefs here.

Criticism of the reasoning behind the decision is coming fast and furious. Here is Anthony Broadman’s take.

Wash. SCT Decides Outsource Servs. Mgmt. v. Nooksack Bus. Corp.

August 21, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion.

An excerpt:

Washington State courts have jurisdiction over civil cases arising on Indian reservations as long as it does not infringe on the sovereignty of the tribe. At issue in this case is whether Washington State courts have jurisdiction over a civil case arising out of a contract in which the tribal corporation waived its sovereign immunity and consented to jurisdiction in Washington State courts. We hold that it does not infringe on the sovereignty of the tribe to honor its own corporation’s decision to enter into a contract providing for jurisdiction in Washington State courts.

Briefs and other materials here.