Justia Native American Law Opinion Summaries

A non-Indian woman and a member of the Prairie Island Mdewakanton Dakota Indian Community married in Minneapolis and resided with their children in Edina, Minnesota, outside the reservation. Their marriage was supported financially by the husband’s “per capita payments” from the Community, and the wife received tribal insurance benefits, but neither spouse lived or owned property on the reservation. After more than thirteen years, both spouses filed for divorce on the same day—he in the Community’s Tribal Court, she in Minnesota state court. The state court stayed proceedings in favor of the Tribal Court, and after a trial, the Tribal Court dissolved the marriage, divided assets, awarded joint custody, and set child support. It did not award the wife spousal maintenance because under Community law, per capita payments are not marital property. The Community’s Court of Appeals affirmed the Tribal Court’s order.The wife then filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, seeking a declaration that the Tribal Court lacked jurisdiction and an injunction against enforcement of the order. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the husband, holding that the Tribal Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the divorce under the “consensual relationship exception” from Montana v. United States, based on the marriage and the wife’s connections to the Community.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed. The Eighth Circuit held that the Tribal Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a divorce between a tribal member and a nonmember spouse who resided outside the reservation, because the consensual relationship exception did not apply in these circumstances. The court concluded that neither the marriage nor the wife’s limited connections to the Community provided a sufficient nexus to tribal lands or property, nor was tribal jurisdiction necessary to protect self-government or internal relations. The case was remanded with instructions to enjoin enforcement of the Tribal Court’s divorce order. View "Tix v. Tix" on Justia Law

A member of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate tribe was observed by a tribal police officer driving erratically within the city limits of Sisseton, nearly causing multiple collisions and fleeing from law enforcement. He was apprehended in a tribal housing unit. Subsequently, the tribal prosecutor charged him in tribal court with driving under the influence (DUI) and resisting arrest, while South Dakota state court charged him with resisting arrest, reckless driving, and assaulting a law enforcement officer. He later pled guilty in state court to assault and was sentenced to two years in prison. The tribal court then dismissed the DUI charge without prejudice.He filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota against various tribal officials, alleging that the DUI charge exceeded the tribe’s criminal jurisdiction and violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment and the Indian Civil Rights Act. The District Court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the complaint failed to raise a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the dismissal. The court concluded that, even assuming it had jurisdiction to consider the scope of the tribe’s criminal authority, the case had become moot because the tribal DUI charge was dismissed and could not be refiled due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. The court found that neither the voluntary cessation exception nor the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to mootness applied. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and vacated its decision, declining to address the underlying questions of tribal jurisdiction, sovereign immunity, or exhaustion of tribal remedies. View "LaBatte v. Gangle" on Justia Law

A man was charged with aggravated sexual abuse of a minor that occurred in a home on the Choctaw Nation reservation in Oklahoma. The victim was a six-year-old boy, and the defendant, who had recently moved in with his stepdaughter, was alleged to have committed the offense within two days of his arrival. The prosecution charged the defendant under federal law, which required proof that the victim was an Indian and the defendant was a non-Indian.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma presided over the trial. The government presented testimony from the defendant’s stepdaughter and three law enforcement officers, as well as driver’s license records, to establish that the defendant was not an Indian. The stepdaughter testified she did not know of any tribal membership or Indian identity for the defendant. Law enforcement witnesses stated the defendant did not identify as Native American and that inquiries with five major Oklahoma tribes yielded no information about his tribal status. The defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove he was a non-Indian. The district court denied the motion, and the jury convicted the defendant, resulting in a 30-year prison sentence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was a non-Indian, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1152. The court held that the government failed to meet its burden, finding the evidence presented was too speculative and insufficient to establish the defendant’s non-Indian status. The Tenth Circuit vacated the conviction and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal. View "United States v. Hebert" on Justia Law

A mining company sought to develop an open pit gold mine in the Kuskokwim River watershed, on lands owned by Alaska Native Corporations. To operate the mine, the company needed state permits for a natural gas pipeline right-of-way across state lands and for water appropriations to dewater the mining pit and support operations. Local tribes objected, arguing that the mine and its associated infrastructure would have significant impacts on the watershed, which is culturally and economically important to them. The Department of Natural Resources approved the pipeline right-of-way and water use permits after considering the impacts of the permitted activities themselves, but not the cumulative impacts of the entire mining project.The tribes appealed the Department’s decisions to the Commissioner, arguing that both the Water Use Act and the Alaska Constitution required consideration of the cumulative impacts of the whole mining project. The Commissioner denied the appeals, finding that the Department was only required to consider the effects of the permitted activities themselves. The tribes then appealed to the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage. The superior court affirmed the Department’s decisions, ruling that the agency was not required to conduct a cumulative impacts analysis of the entire mine project under either statute or the constitution.On further appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed whether the Department was required to consider the cumulative impacts of the entire mining project when granting the pipeline right-of-way and water use permits. The court held that neither the Water Use Act nor the Right-of-Way Leasing Act required consideration of downstream effects of mining activity enabled by the permits. The court also held that Article VIII of the Alaska Constitution did not require the Department to consider the costs and benefits of developing private resources on private lands when deciding whether to grant permits for the use of state resources. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s judgments. View "Orutsararmiut Native Council v. Boyle" on Justia Law

A corporation owned by a federally recognized Indian tribe, along with several tribal officials, was alleged by the State of California to have violated state cigarette tax laws and regulations. The corporation manufactured and distributed cigarettes in California, including to non-tribal consumers, without collecting or remitting required state excise taxes or payments under the Master Settlement Agreement. California claimed that the corporation and its officials distributed contraband cigarettes not listed on the state’s approved directory and failed to comply with shipping, recordkeeping, and tax collection requirements under the federal Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act (PACT Act). Despite warnings and being placed on a federal non-compliance list, the corporation continued its operations.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California considered the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court found that the corporation, as an arm of the tribe, was shielded by tribal sovereign immunity and dismissed claims against it. However, the court allowed claims for injunctive relief against the individual tribal officials in their official capacities to proceed, holding that the Ex parte Young doctrine permitted such relief under the PACT Act. The court also denied the officials’ claims of qualified immunity for personal capacity claims, reasoning that qualified immunity did not apply to enforcement actions brought by a state under a federal statute.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Ninth Circuit held that the PACT Act does not preclude Ex parte Young actions for prospective injunctive relief against tribal officials, as the Act does not limit who may be sued or the types of relief available, nor does it contain a sufficiently detailed remedial scheme to displace Ex parte Young. The court also held that qualified immunity does not shield tribal officials from California’s claims for civil penalties and money damages under the PACT Act. View "STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. DEL ROSA" on Justia Law

A federally recognized Indian tribe in northern Nevada, whose lands were set aside by the federal government in the early 20th century, experienced a leadership dispute after the death of its council chairman in 2000. Two factions claimed to be the legitimate tribal government, leading to litigation in tribal courts and a prolonged refusal by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to recognize either group. Eventually, the BIA recognized the results of a 2014 tribal election favoring one faction, but disputes over land occupation and government recognition persisted.The faction recognized by the 2014 election filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief regarding tribal leadership and alleging unauthorized occupation of tribal lands. The district court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit later vacated those orders, holding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and remanded with instructions to dismiss. The BIA continued to recognize the election results unless a tribal remedy required otherwise.Before the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate, the tribe filed suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims, alleging statutory violations and breaches of trust related to land and water rights. The Claims Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, finding that some claims failed to identify a money-mandating source of law, others were time-barred, some were barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1500 due to the pending Nevada action, and some sought equitable relief outside its jurisdiction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Claims Court’s dismissal. The court held that the tribe’s claims either lacked a money-mandating source of law, were time-barred, or were barred by § 1500 because they were based on substantially the same operative facts as the earlier Nevada action. The court also affirmed that the Claims Court lacked jurisdiction over the equitable relief requested. View "WINNEMUCCA INDIAN COLONY v. US " on Justia Law

Two children, Claudia and Leila, were declared dependents of the court after an incident in which their parents, Wendy C. (Mother) and Michael M. (Father), engaged in a domestic altercation in the children’s presence, with Father under the influence of methamphetamine and in possession of a knife. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) filed petitions alleging parental substance abuse and failure to protect the children. The juvenile court sustained these allegations, removed the children from Father’s custody, and initially placed them with Mother. Later, after Mother failed to comply with court-ordered counseling and tested positive for drugs, the children were removed from her care as well. Reunification services were terminated, and the court ultimately found the children adoptable, terminating both parents’ rights and designating the current caretaker as the prospective adoptive parent.Mother appealed the termination of her parental rights, arguing that the Department and the juvenile court failed to comply with the inquiry requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and the California Indian Child Welfare Act (Cal-ICWA). The Department had interviewed the parents, both grandmothers, and a paternal aunt, all of whom denied knowledge of Indian ancestry. However, the Department did not inquire of other extended family members, including the maternal grandfather, maternal aunt, maternal uncle, and paternal grandfather, despite having or being able to obtain their contact information.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, held that the Department did not fulfill its duty under section 224.2, subdivision (b), to interview all reasonably available extended family members regarding possible Indian ancestry. The court conditionally reversed the orders terminating parental rights and remanded the case for further ICWA and Cal-ICWA inquiry and compliance. If the children are found to be Indian children, a new hearing must be held; otherwise, the original orders will be reinstated. View "In re Claudia R." on Justia Law

A federally recognized Indian tribe purchased a parcel of nonreservation land in Washington State using state and federal conservation grant funds, with the purpose of protecting salmon habitat and preserving tribal treaty fishing rights. The land was designated for conservation and was not part of any reservation. A neighboring landowner, a Washington corporation, claimed that it and its predecessors had acquired title to a strip of this land through adverse possession, based on decades of exclusive use and maintenance of a boundary fence. The corporation filed a quiet title action in Snohomish County Superior Court against both the tribe and the county, seeking to establish its ownership of the disputed strip.The Snohomish County Superior Court dismissed the action with prejudice, finding that the tribe was protected by sovereign immunity and could not be sued without its consent or an act of Congress. The corporation sought direct review by the Washington Supreme Court, which transferred the case to the Washington Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that tribal sovereign immunity is not subject to a common law immovable property exception unless Congress or the tribe itself clearly waives immunity. The court also noted that prior Washington cases allowing in rem jurisdiction over tribally owned nonreservation land were no longer good law in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren, 584 U.S. 554 (2018).The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case and held that state courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over adverse possession claims involving nonreservation land owned by tribes, unless there is a clear waiver of immunity by the tribe or Congress. The court further held that the common law immovable property exception does not apply to tribal sovereign immunity. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed. View "Flying T Ranch, Inc. v. Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians" on Justia Law

John Doe, a Native American juvenile and member of the Eastern Shoshone Tribe, was charged in federal court with multiple offenses, including kidnapping a minor on tribal land for the purpose of physical assault. The government filed a six-count juvenile information, and Doe admitted to certain charges, including kidnapping, assault with a dangerous weapon, and provided a factual basis for his admissions. The events occurred in a trailer on the Wind River Indian Reservation, where Doe assaulted two minor victims and instructed one to remain in a closet as he left the scene.The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming held an admission hearing, where Doe, with counsel, admitted to the relevant charges. The court found a sufficient factual basis and conditionally accepted the admissions. After a delinquency hearing, Doe was adjudicated delinquent on several counts and committed to detention and supervision. Following the district court’s judgment, the Tenth Circuit decided United States v. Murphy, which clarified that the “holds” element of federal kidnapping requires proof the victim was detained for an appreciable period beyond that necessary to commit any related offense. Doe appealed, arguing his admission was not knowing or voluntary because he was not informed of this temporal requirement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case under the plain error standard. The court held that Murphy did not clearly establish the temporal requirement as an essential element of kidnapping, nor did Doe demonstrate that the district court’s failure to inform him of this requirement was a plain error under well-settled law. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment of delinquency. View "United States v. Doe" on Justia Law

A dispute arose over the State of Hawai‘i Board of Land and Natural Resources’ (the Board) annual continuation of a revocable water permit issued to Kaua‘i Island Utility Cooperative (KIUC) for the diversion of water from state lands to power hydropower plants. The permit, first issued in 2003, was renewed yearly through 2022. In 2019, the diversion infrastructure was severely damaged, and KIUC ceased using the water for hydropower but continued to maintain the system. Petitioners, two organizations with members asserting native Hawaiian traditional and customary rights, requested contested case hearings in 2020 and 2021, arguing that the continued diversion and disrepair of the system harmed their rights and the environment. The Board denied these requests and continued the permit.Petitioners appealed to the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Environmental Court), challenging the denial of contested case hearings, the permit’s continuation, and alleging violations of the Board’s public trust duties. While the appeal was pending, the permit expired at the end of 2022. The Environmental Court found that Petitioners had protected property interests under the Hawai‘i Constitution, that their due process rights were violated by the denial of contested case hearings, and that the Board’s failure to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law prevented meaningful review. The court vacated and reversed the Board’s 2021 and 2022 permit continuations.The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated the Environmental Court’s decision, holding that Petitioners had standing under the right to a clean and healthful environment, but that the case was moot and no exceptions applied. The ICA also found no due process violation and concluded the Environmental Court exceeded its jurisdiction in reviewing the merits of the permit continuations.The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i held that exceptions to mootness applied, Petitioners had standing based on injury to traditional and customary rights, and that contested case hearings were required to protect their due process rights. The court vacated the ICA’s judgment and remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings. View "Kia'i Wai o Wai'ale'ale v. Board of Land and Natural Resources" on Justia Law