Justia Native American Law Opinion Summaries

Oscar Hudspeth, a member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, was convicted by a jury of two sex abuse offenses involving his young stepdaughter, D.J., which occurred when she was between five and seven years old and living in his home. The prosecution’s evidence included D.J.’s testimony about the abuse and statements Hudspeth made during a post-polygraph interview with an FBI agent, where he admitted to inappropriate touching. Prior to trial, both parties agreed to exclude any reference to the polygraph test from evidence, and the district court admitted a redacted version of the interview transcript omitting mention of the polygraph.In the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Hudspeth moved to either exclude the entire interview or, alternatively, to ensure all polygraph references were redacted. When it became clear that a redacted version would be admitted, Hudspeth changed his position, seeking to admit the entire interview, including polygraph references, to provide context for his admissions. The district court admitted the redacted interview and excluded polygraph references, noting that Hudspeth had earlier agreed to the exclusion. Hudspeth was ultimately found guilty and sentenced to the mandatory minimum term.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed whether excluding polygraph references violated Hudspeth’s constitutional right to present a complete defense. The court held that the exclusion did not violate his constitutional rights or constitute an abuse of discretion. It found that polygraph evidence is generally unreliable and disfavored, and that the exclusion was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate. The court concluded that even if there was error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the strength of the prosecution’s case. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Hudspeth" on Justia Law

A child and her sister, both recognized as Indian children under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), were removed from their parents due to concerns about their welfare. After an unsuccessful initial foster placement, the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) placed the children with their mother’s cousin, Petra, in Seattle. Petra is a member of the children’s tribe. Upon arrival, the children had dental and nutritional issues. Although Petra arranged dental surgery for one child, she did not obtain follow-up care for the other child, Ax adée, whose dental problems persisted untreated during two years in Petra’s care. Petra also imposed dietary restrictions on Ax adée, resulting in significant stagnation in the child’s growth.After Petra requested that the other child be moved due to behavioral concerns, OCS placed both children with Chastity, a licensed therapeutic foster parent and tribal member in Alaska. Following this transfer, Ax adée received extensive dental treatment and began gaining weight after dietary restrictions were lifted. Petra challenged OCS’s decision in the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, First Judicial District, Ketchikan, arguing she was a suitable foster parent and that OCS had not justified the placement change.After a six-day evidentiary hearing, the superior court found that Petra had failed to address Ax adée’s dental and nutritional needs, leading to significant health concerns. The court concluded that Petra was not a suitable foster parent and upheld OCS’s decision to place the child in a lower-preference ICWA foster home.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and affirmed the superior court’s order. The main holding is that clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that Petra was not a suitable foster parent due to her failure to meet the child’s basic dental and nutritional needs, justifying placement in a lower-preference home under ICWA. View "Petra J. v. State of Alaska" on Justia Law

State officials in Florida constructed an immigration detention facility at the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport, located in the Florida Everglades, using state funds and employees. The facility was built on state property and managed by state law enforcement, although federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials inspected the site and occasionally coordinated the transport and detention of individuals there. The state planned to seek federal reimbursement but had not received any federal funding at the time of the events in question. Several state agencies operated under agreements with the federal government, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g), allowing them to assist with immigration enforcement, but Florida retained control over the facility’s management and construction.The Friends of the Everglades, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. They alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), claiming that officials failed to conduct a required environmental review before constructing and operating the facility. The district court issued a preliminary injunction halting further construction, requiring removal of certain structures, and prohibiting detention of additional individuals at the site. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, concluding that the construction was a final agency action and a major federal action under NEPA, and that federal officials exercised substantial control over the project.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate either a final agency action under the APA or substantial federal control necessary to trigger NEPA, given that Florida constructed and controlled the facility without federal funding or operational authority. The court also found that the district court’s injunction violated a statutory prohibition against enjoining immigration enforcement. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings. View "Friends of the Everglades, Inc. v. Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

The dispute arose after the Fort Sill Apache Tribe opened the Warm Springs Casino near Lawton, Oklahoma, in 2022. The Comanche Nation, which operates casinos in the same region, experienced increased competition and claimed that the Warm Springs Casino was opened in violation of federal law. The Comanche Nation sought injunctive relief to halt the casino’s operations and monetary damages against several officials of the Fort Sill Apache Tribe, both in their individual and official capacities.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma heard the officials’ motion to dismiss, in which the officials argued that tribal sovereign immunity barred the claims against them. The district court denied the officials' motion to dismiss, finding that the officials were not protected by tribal immunity on the claims at issue and that the Tribe was not a required party for the purposes of the lawsuit. The district court’s order also explicitly denied tribal immunity as a defense to the official-capacity Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claim, and implicitly rejected tribal immunity for the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of tribal immunity under the collateral-order doctrine. The Tenth Circuit held that IGRA abrogates tribal sovereign immunity for claims brought by an Indian tribe to enjoin class III gaming conducted in violation of a tribal-state compact on Indian lands, allowing the Comanche Nation’s official-capacity IGRA claim to proceed. However, the Tenth Circuit concluded that tribal immunity barred the official-capacity RICO claims because the requirements of the Ex Parte Young exception were not met. The court further held that the officials were not entitled to tribal immunity on the individual-capacity RICO claims. The Tenth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Comanche Nation v. Ware" on Justia Law

Between 2017 and 2021, a man sexually abused a minor, the daughter of his girlfriend, in various locations within Indian country in Oklahoma. The abuse came to light after the victim reported it to a school counselor, triggering investigations by state, tribal, and federal authorities. The locations of the abuse included areas within the Cherokee and Muscogee (Creek) Reservations.Initially, the State of Oklahoma charged the defendant in state court as a non-Indian, and the Cherokee Nation filed charges against him in tribal court as an Indian for the same conduct. The defendant sought dismissal of the state prosecution, claiming Indian status, and, in the tribal prosecution, claimed he was not an Indian. Subsequently, a federal grand jury indicted him on four counts: two under 18 U.S.C. § 1152 (as a non-Indian defendant with an Indian victim), and two under 18 U.S.C. § 1153 (as an Indian defendant). The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment as multiplicitous or to require the government to elect the theory of prosecution. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma denied these motions and allowed the case to proceed to trial, instructing the jury to convict under only one statutory regime, not both.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that there was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was an Indian and that the defendant was a non-Indian at the time of the offenses. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting alternative charges to go to the jury, so long as the instructions prevented multiplicitous convictions. The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions. View "United States v. King" on Justia Law

A group of environmental organizations, Native tribes, and individual plaintiffs sought to prevent a land exchange in Southeast Arizona’s Tonto National Forest, mandated by the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act. This exchange would transfer nearly 2,500 acres of federal land, including Oak Flat—a site of religious significance to the Apache—and a large copper deposit to Resolution Copper Mining LLC. In return, the company would provide over 5,000 acres of equally appraised land to the federal government. Plaintiffs raised concerns under several statutes, including the Land Exchange Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and the Free Exercise Clause, alleging procedural and substantive flaws in the exchange.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona denied motions for preliminary injunctions, finding that plaintiffs failed to show likely success or serious questions on the merits of their claims relating to appraisal, NEPA compliance, tribal consultation, and religious liberty. In a related case, Apache Stronghold v. United States, the district court’s denial of an injunction on religious liberty grounds was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit and not disturbed by the Supreme Court.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. The court held that plaintiffs had Article III standing and that their NEPA claims were justiciable as “final agency action.” However, it concluded that plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits of their appraisal, NEPA, consultation, or religious liberty claims. The court further determined that existing precedent foreclosed the RFRA and Free Exercise arguments. The court did not address other injunction factors and dissolved the administrative stay. View "BROWN LOPEZ V. USA" on Justia Law

Two Illinois residents obtained online loans of $600 each from a lender operating under the laws of the Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, with interest rates approaching 500% per year. The loan agreements included an arbitration clause, which delegated to the arbitrator all questions including the enforceability and formation of the agreement, specifying that such issues would be determined under “tribal law and applicable federal law.” At the time the loans were issued, the referenced tribal law did not exist.After receiving the loans, the borrowers filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of Illinois consumer-protection statutes and federal laws. The defendants moved to compel arbitration under the terms of the loan agreements. The district court denied the motion, finding that the arbitration and delegation provisions were unenforceable because they effectively forced the plaintiffs to waive their substantive rights under Illinois law, applying the “prospective waiver” doctrine.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial de novo. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no mutual assent to the arbitration and delegation provisions. The court determined that, at the time of contracting, the specified tribal law did not exist, and federal law does not supply substantive contract-formation rules. Because the contract’s governing law provision referred to a body of law that was nonexistent and subject to unilateral creation by the defendants’ affiliate, there was no meeting of the minds as to an essential term. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the absence of mutual assent rendered the arbitration and delegation provisions unenforceable and affirmed the district court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Harris v W6LS, Inc." on Justia Law

A federal land exchange was mandated by the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act, requiring the United States Forest Service to transfer approximately 2,500 acres of National Forest land, including Oak Flat—a site of religious significance to the Apache—to Resolution Copper Mining, LLC, in exchange for over 5,000 acres of private land. The legislation included requirements for tribal consultation, land appraisal, and the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). Following the issuance of a revised Final EIS in 2025, several environmental and tribal groups, as well as individual Apache plaintiffs, challenged the exchange. Their claims spanned the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and the Free Exercise Clause, alleging procedural and substantive deficiencies.Previously, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona denied the plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction, finding that they had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on any claims relating to the appraisal process, NEPA, consultation, or the National Forest Management Act. A separate group of Apache plaintiffs brought similar claims, including religious liberty challenges, which were also denied—particularly in light of circuit precedent established in Apache Stronghold v. United States. All plaintiff groups appealed and sought further injunctive relief pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial for abuse of discretion and affirmed. The court held that plaintiffs had standing and their claims were justiciable, but that none of their arguments were likely to succeed on the merits or raised serious questions. The court specifically found the appraisals and environmental review sufficient, the agency’s tribal consultation adequate, and the religious liberty claims foreclosed by circuit precedent. The denial of a preliminary injunction was affirmed, and all related motions for injunctive relief were denied as moot. View "ARIZONA MINING REFORM COALITION V. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE" on Justia Law

An individual was convicted by a jury in Charles Mix County, South Dakota, for failing to appear at a pretrial conference in a pending felony case. In a separate incident, he pleaded guilty to simple assault following an altercation with another inmate at the county jail. He appealed both convictions, raising jurisdictional arguments based on his status as an enrolled member of the Yankton Sioux Tribe. He contended that both the courthouse and the jail are located in Indian country, thus depriving the state court of jurisdiction. He also challenged the denial of his motion to dismiss under the 180-day rule, the admission of certain evidence, and the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal in the failure to appear case.The First Judicial Circuit Court denied his motions to dismiss, finding that neither the courthouse nor the jail was located in Indian country as defined by federal law. The court attributed most of the pretrial delay to the defendant’s own actions, such as refusing to participate in proceedings and to communicate with counsel, and determined the 180-day period for trial had not expired. The court also admitted evidence over his objections, including a bond form and testimony by his prior attorney, and allowed a jury to decide the failure to appear charge.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed both appeals together. It held that the land in question does not qualify as Indian country under 18 U.S.C. § 1151(a)-(c), reaffirming precedent that previously allotted lands that have passed into non-Indian ownership are not Indian country. The court declined to overrule its earlier decision in Bruguier v. Class. It further held that the 180-day rule was not violated, the challenged evidence was properly admitted, and sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict. The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed both convictions. View "State v. Winckler" on Justia Law

Twin infants who are eligible for tribal membership were placed in emergency foster care with licensed, non-tribal foster parents after being born with serious medical issues. The county obtained temporary legal custody of the children through a Child in Need of Protection or Services (CHIPS) proceeding, and the children were eventually moved from the foster parents’ home to the home of maternal relatives who are members of the same tribe as the children. The foster parents, after learning of the planned move, sought to intervene permissively in the CHIPS case, filed a third-party custody petition, and moved to stay the placement change, arguing in part that tribal placement preference statutes were unconstitutional.The Minnesota District Court denied the foster parents’ motions to intervene and for a stay, and dismissed the third-party custody petition without considering their constitutional arguments. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. It directed the district court to reconsider intervention and third-party custody, and addressed the constitutionality of the Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA), finding it constitutional. On remand, the district court again denied intervention and dismissed the third-party custody petition, concluding the foster parents were not proper parties and could not file such petitions in the ongoing CHIPS proceeding.The Minnesota Supreme Court consolidated the appeals. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying permissive intervention, as such intervention was not in the children’s best interests. The court also held that a third-party custody petition is not available in juvenile court CHIPS proceedings and may only be brought as a petition to transfer custody by a party to the action. Because the foster parents were not parties, the court declined to address their constitutional challenges to ICWA and MIFPA, and vacated the Court of Appeals’ discussion of those constitutional issues. The court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L.K." on Justia Law