Source: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/indian-nations-law-update-june-2018
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:25:32+00:00

Document:
The Tribe and the federal government disagree. They note that immunity doctrines lifted from other contexts do not always neatly apply to Indian tribes. See Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 756, 118 S.Ct. 1700, 140 L.Ed.2d 981 (1998) (“[T]he immunity possessed by Indian tribes is not coextensive with that of the States”). And since the founding, they say, the political branches rather than judges have held primary responsibility for determining when foreign sovereigns may be sued for their activities in this country. Verlinden B.V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 486, 103 S.Ct. 1962, 76 L.Ed.2d 81 (1983); Ex parte Peru, 318 U.S. 578, 588, 63 S.Ct. 793, 87 L.Ed. 1014 (1943).
We leave it to the Washington Supreme Court to address these arguments in the first instance. Although we have discretion to affirm on any ground supported by the law and the record that will not expand the relief granted below, Thigpen v. Roberts, 468 U.S. 27, 30, 104 S.Ct. 2916, 82 L.Ed.2d 23 (1984), in this case we think restraint is the best use of discretion. Determining the limits on the sovereign immunity held by Indian tribes is a grave question; the answer will affect all tribes, not just the one before us; and the alternative argument for affirmance did not emerge until late in this case. In fact, it appeared only when the United States filed an amicus brief in this case—after briefing on certiorari, after the Tribe filed its opening brief and after the Tribe’s other amici had their say. This Court has often declined to take a “first view” of questions that make their appearance in this posture and we think that course the wise one today.
Justices Alito and Thomas dissented from the decision to remand on the ground that the immovable property exception to sovereign immunity was clearly applicable and that the Court, therefore, should have decided the case on that ground.
Assuming, as seems likely, that the Washington Supreme Court on remand decides for the Lundgrens based on the common law immovable property exception to sovereign immunity, the result will be a slight diminishment of tribal sovereign immunity with respect to off-reservation property. On the other hand, the Court’s implicit disavowal of an in rem exception to tribal sovereign immunity will likely strengthen tribes’ ability to assert sovereign immunity to avoid tax foreclosures and similar actions relating to on-reservation property.
the BIA’s final environmental impact statement (FEIS) satisfied the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements.
In Van Pelt v. Giesen, 2018 WL 2187375 (D. N.M. 2018), Van Pelt was arrested for possession of narcotics on the Pueblo of Santo Domingo Reservation. He entered a plea of guilty in the tribal court, was judged guilty and sentenced to one year of jail and assessed various fines and fees. Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, alleging violations of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 (ICRA) 25 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1303, specifically that he was (1) denied the right to assistance of counsel, in violation of 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(6); (2) denied the right to a trial by jury, in violation of 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(10); and (3) subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(7)(A). The respondents, including a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) warden and the governor and lieutenant governor of the Pueblo, eventually conceded that the writ should be granted but objected to the petitioner’s assertion that the conviction should be reversed rather than merely vacated. The magistrate judge, 2018 WL 2187658, agreed and recommended that the sentence be vacated: “A sentence reversal, then, as Petitioner requests, would require the Court to act in its appellate capacity and would run afoul of the confines of habeas corpus review. As the Tribal Respondents highlight in their brief, the terms ‘vacate’ and ‘reverse’ have, at times, been used almost interchangeably in ICRA actions. However, the terms implicate very different results. In light of the sanctity of tribal sovereignty, and the need to safeguard not just the rights of the individual, but also the rights of the tribe, it is imperative that the Court stay within its own lane when crafting appropriate relief in this case.” The district judge adopted the magistrate’s recommendation.
because the contract was valid, tribal exhaustion, which was explicitly waived in the contract, was both unnecessary and futile.
In the case of In re Williams, 2018 WL 2294103 (Mich. 2018), Williams, a member of the Sault Sainte Marie Chippewa Tribe, voluntarily terminated his parental rights but then intervened in adoption proceedings to withdraw the termination. The Michigan Supreme Court held that (1) a specific adoptive placement was not required for Williams’ consent to termination of his parental rights to be valid, (2) Williams was not required to have executed any additional consent in order to be statutorily-entitled, under the Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA), to withdraw his consent to termination of his parental rights, and (3) Williams’ status as a participant in the previous child protection proceeding did not preclude him from benefiting from the consent-withdrawal provision of the Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act .
Copyright © 2019 Godfrey & Kahn S.C.
Brian Pierson leads Godfrey & Kahn's Indian Nations Law Team. Brian clerked for federal district judge Myron L. Gordon before entering private practice. Brian has more than 20 years experience representing Indian tribes, beginning with his successful representation of Chippewa Indians in federal court litigation to prevent racially-motivated interference with treaty-reserved, off-reservation fishing rights.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1302
 § 1302
 § 1302