Justia Native American Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Jeffrey Zander was convicted of two counts of mail fraud, two counts of wire fraud, one count of money laundering, and three counts of willful failure to file federal tax returns. The fraud and money laundering counts at issue in this appeal all arose out of Defendant’s scheme to divert federal grant money intended for the Paiute Indian Tribe for his own personal use. Defendant began working for the Tribe as a tribal planner in 1998, and he subsequently became the Tribe’s trust resource and economic development director. As a director, Defendant worked independently with minimal supervision. In about 2004 or 2005, Defendant suggested the Tribe seek federal grant money to fund the development of an Integrated Resource Management Plan (IRMP) for each of the Tribe's bands. The agency approved and awarded the following five IRMP development grants. Instead of hiring an outside consultant and facilitator to help develop IRMPs for each band, Defendant created false invoices and purchase orders for four fictitious companies and represented to the Tribe that these companies had provided consulting and facilitating services for the IRMP development projects. Based on these representations, the Tribe issued checks made out to these nonexistent companies and, at Defendant’s direction, either mailed the checks to post office boxes that were actually owned or controlled by Defendant or gave them to Defendant to hand-deliver to the purported companies. Defendant was sentenced to sixty-eight months of imprisonment and ordered to pay $202,543.92 in restitution to the Tribe. On appeal, he challenged his convictions on the mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering counts. He also challenged the length of his sentence and the amount of restitution awarded to the Tribe. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found the trial court miscalculated defendant's sentence and restitution amount. It reversed and remanded for recalculation. The Court affirmed in all other respects, finding no reversible error. View "United States v. Zander" on Justia Law

A.W., 10 months old, lived with his mother, Maxwell; his father, White; and half-siblings. A.W. was developing normally. On August 30, Maxwell took a walk with the other children, returning 10 minutes later. White met them at the door and stated that A.W. was choking and that he had found a cigarette filter in A.W.’s mouth. At the hospital, A.W. seized, breathed irregularly, had unequal pupils, and had extensor posturing, which can indicate injury at the deepest part of the brain. A doctor noticed bruising, estimated to be hours old, and believed that A.W. had been “shaken.” At a Fargo medical center, doctors found a brain hemorrhage and concluded that A.W. had shaken baby syndrome. His parents raised concerns about Maxwell’s eight-year old son, J.S., who may have played a role in the death of dogs who were thrown against a tree; knocked out another child’s teeth; threw rocks at children; and had previously injured A.W. A.W. survived and was placed into a therapeutic foster home for medically fragile children. A jury found White guilty of assault resulting in serious bodily injury in Indian country, 18 U.S.C. 113(a)(6), 1151, 1153(a). The court granted White’s motion for acquittal. The Eighth Circuit reversed. The government’s case favored guilt. There was evidence about J.S., but also evidence that a reasonable jury could find to be powerful evidence of White’s guilt and evidence that J.S. did not injure A.W. on August 30. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) divides gaming on Indian lands into three classes and provides a different regulatory scheme for each class. “Non-banking” card games (including poker) can be either Class II or Class III gaming, depending on the laws of the state in which the gaming takes place, 25 U.S.C. 2703. Banking card games are those in which the casino participates “in the game, where the house takes on all players, collects from all losers, and pays all winners, and the house can win.” The Coeur d’Alene Tribe and the state executed a Compact authorizing the Tribe to offer Class III gaming. The parties failed to agree on the scope of gaming allowed by Idaho law. The state argued that Idaho law only permitted the state lottery and parimutuel betting, while the Tribe countered that it allowed “all games that contain the elements of chance and or skill, prize and consideration.” Idaho officials learned that the Tribe intended to offer Texas Hold’em at the Casino and obtained a preliminary injunction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that tribal sovereign immunity was not abrogated and that venue was improper under the terms of the Tribal-State Gaming Compact and upholding the district court’s findings. View "State of Idaho v. Coeur D'Alene TribeRIBE" on Justia Law

The federally recognized Indian Tribe is a successor to an 1864 Treaty between the United States and the Chippewa Indians, including an agreement by the United States to set aside property in Isabella County, Michigan as a reservation. The Treaty did not mention application of federal regulations to members of the Tribe or to the Tribe itself. The property reserved for the “exclusive use, ownership, and occupancy” of the Tribe became the Isabella Reservation. The Tribe has over 3,000 members, and is governed by an elected council. In 1993, under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the Tribe and the state entered a compact, approved by the United States, allowing the Tribe to conduct gaming on the Isabella reservation. The Tribe opened the Casino; enacted a gaming code with licensing criteria for employees; and created a regulatory body. The council hires all Casino management-level employees, approves contracts, and decides how to distribute revenue. Of the Casino’s 3,000 employees, 7% are Tribe members, as are 30% of management-level employees. The Casino generates $250 million in gross annual revenues and attracts 20,000 customers per year, many of whom are not Tribe members. The Tribe discharged Lewis for violating an employee handbook policy that prohibited solicitation by employees, including solicitation related to union activities, on Casino property. The NLRB found that the policy violated the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151. The Sixth Circuit affirmed and enforced the order, finding that the NLRB has jurisdiction over the Casino’s employment practices. View "Soaring Eagle Casino & Resort v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, applying advantage gambling techniques, won a significant amount of money on video blackjack machines at a casino owned and operated by the Tonto Apache Tribe on tribal land. Plaintiffs filed suit against the tribal defendants, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violations of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and under state tort law for battery, false imprisonment, conversion, defamation, trespass to chattels, and negligence. The district court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. At issue was whether tribal officers may assert tribal sovereign immunity when sued in their individual capacities for an assertedly unconstitutional detention and seizure of property. The court concluded that sovereign immunity is a quasi-jurisdictional issue that, if invoked at the Rule 12(b)(1) stage, must be addressed and decided; the district court erred in concluding that it could deny the tribal defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion even if they were entitled to tribal sovereign immunity; the tribal defendants are not entitled to tribal sovereign immunity, however, because they are being sued in their individual capacities, rather than in their official capacities, for actions taken in the course of their official duties; and whether the tribal defendants were acting under state or tribal law does not matter for purposes of this analysis, although it will matter for purposes of deciding whether plaintiffs can succeed in their section 1983 claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Pistor v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The Pueblo of Jemez brought suit against the United States under the federal common law and the Quiet Title Act (QTA), seeking to quiet its allegedly unextinguished and continuing aboriginal title to the lands of what was known as Valles Caldera National Preserve. The government filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The district court held it lacked subject matter jurisdiction as a matter of law and dismissed the action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). It reasoned that sovereign immunity barred the action based on its conclusion that the Jemez Pueblo’s title claim against the United States accrued in 1860 when the United States granted the lands in question to the heirs of Luis Maria Cabeza de Baca (the Baca heirs). The claim thus fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Indian Claims Commission Act (ICCA), which waived sovereign immunity and provided a cause of action to all Indian claims against the government that accrued before 1946 so long as they were filed within a five year statute of limitations period. Because the claim was not so filed, it became barred by sovereign immunity. The Pueblo appealed, arguing that its aboriginal title was not extinguished by the 1860 grant to the Baca heirs and that its claim for interference with its Indian title did not accrue until 2000, after the United States acquired an interest in the Valles Caldera and began interfering with the Jemez Pueblo’s access to the land. Upon careful consideration of the arguments made on appeal, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings: "This appeal is not about whether the Jemez Pueblo holds aboriginal title. On remand, the Jemez Pueblo will have to prove that it had, and still has, aboriginal title to the land at issue in the case. This appeal concerns whether the 1860 Baca grant extinguished the Jemez Pueblo’s alleged aboriginal title to the lands which are the subject of this action. We hold it did not and the district court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, the 1860 Baca grant itself provided a pre-1946 claim against the United States the Jemez Pueblo could have brought under the ICCA." View "Pueblo of Jemez v. United States" on Justia Law

In a consolidated appeal, Respondents Steven B. and Ernie Begaye were both enrolled members of the Navajo Nation who were accused of offenses committed on Parcel Three of Fort Wingate (Parcel Three). The question this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether Parcel Three was a "dependent Indian community" and therefore Indian country under 18 U.S.C. 1151(b) (2012) and "Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government," (522 U.S. 520 (1998)). If so, then the district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Respondents; if not, then the New Mexico Supreme Court had to reverse the district court and permit the State to proceed against Respondents. In review of the controlling case law, the history and the present circumstances of Parcel Three, the Supreme Court concluded that Parcel Teal was not a dependent Indian community, and the district court, therefore, had jurisdiction over Respondents. The district court and the Court of Appeals having concluded otherwise, the Supreme Court reversed. View "New Mexico v. Steven B." on Justia Law

The Tribe and its elected chairperson filed suit alleging claims asserting title to the Tejon Ranch. The district court granted the government's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court concluded that the district court properly determined that the Tribe has no ownership interest in the Tejon Ranch where the district court correctly concluded that the Tribe’s failure to present a claim to the Commission pursuant to the California Land Claims Act of 1851 extinguished its title, that the Treaty with Utah did not convey land rights to the signatory tribes or recognize aboriginal title, and that Treaty D was never ratified and conveyed no rights; the court rejected claims of numerous acts of alleged forgery and deception in regards to the four Mexican land grants comprising Tejon Ranch; the district court properly rejected claims that a reservation reserved to the Tribe was established under the Act; the claims against Kern County are subsumed into the ownership determination; and the claims originally asserted against the Secretary, along with the chairperson’s individual claims, were waived for failure to assert on appeal. The court declined to consider the Tribe's new arguments on appeal and did not reach any other issue urged on appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Robinson v. Jewell" on Justia Law

Nearly forty years ago the Ute Tribe filed a lawsuit alleging that Utah and several local governments were unlawfully trying to displace tribal authority on tribal lands. After a decade of proceedings at the district court and on appeal, the Tenth Circuit agreed to hear the case en banc. In the decision that followed, "Ute III," the court ruled for the Tribe and rejected Utah's claim that congressional action had diminished three constituent parts of Ute tribal lands (the Uncompahgre Reservation, the Uintah Valley Reservation, and certain national forest areas. When the Supreme Court denied certiorari, that "should have been the end of the matter." State officials chose "to disregard the binding effect of the Tenth Circuit decision in order to attempt to relitigate the boundary dispute in a friendlier forum" by continuing to prosecute tribal members in state court for conduct within the boundaries recognized by Ute III. Utah argued to the Utah Supreme Court that Ute III did not diminish tribal territory did diminish at least a part of the Uintah Valley Reservation. The Court agreed, as did the U.S. Supreme Court (despite having denied certiorari to "Ute III"). The issue of what to do with the mandate of "Ute III" remained: keeping it in place could leave the United States Supreme Court's decision in Hagen to control only cases arising from Utah state courts and not federal district courts. In "Ute V," the Tenth Circuit elected to recall and modify Ute III's mandate. On appeal, Utah sought to diminish parts of the national forest and Uncompahgre lands. "Ute V" rejected this request. The Tribe filed suit in federal court, seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting the State and its counties from pursuing criminal prosecutions of Indians in state court for offenses arising in areas declared by Ute III and V to be Indian country, and prohibiting the State and its subdivisions from otherwise relitigating matters settled by those decisions. Before the Tenth Circuit in this matter were three interlocutory (but immediately appealable) collateral orders this latest litigation has spawned: (1) the Tribe's request for a preliminary injunction; (2) the Tribe's claim of immunity from the counterclaims; and (3) Uintah County's claim of immunity from the Tribe's suit. In all three decisions the district court denied the requested relief. But the Tenth Circuit found Tribe's arguments on all three points as "well taken." The district court should have issued a preliminary injunction; the Tribe was shielded by sovereign immunity; and Uintah County was not. View "Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah" on Justia Law

Mother was an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. After Jassenia, who was allegedly eligible for enrollment in the tribe, was removed from Mother’s care, the State filed a petition for adjudication pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a). At issue before the juvenile court was whether the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) applied to the adjudication proceeding. The juvenile court determined that ICWA applied to the proceedings. Jassenia’s guardian ad litem appealed, asserting that Mother’s intent to relinquish custody of Jassenia rendered ICWA inapplicable. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the juvenile court’s order did not constitute a final, appealable order because the mere determination that ICWA applied, without further action, did not affect a substantial right. View "In re Interest of Jassenia H." on Justia Law