Court Opinion

ID: 9843811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:43:31.77602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:13.819628
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
concurring specially.
[¶ 37] In ¶ 23, the majority asserts: “As the Tribe correctly points out, however, membership in an Indian tribe is not synonymous with enrollment as a member of the tribe.”
[¶ 38] The authority cited by the majority actually reflects that “membership in an Indian tribe is not always synonymous with enrollment as a member of the tribe.” See, e.g., In re Arianna, 2003 WI 11, ¶ 17, 259 Wis.2d 563, 657 N.W.2d 363 (“[M]any tribes require a person to register or enroll in order to be considered a member of the tribe, but some do not and automatically include a person as a member if the person is descended from a tribal member who was listed on the tribal rolls as of a specific date.”).
[¶ 39] The majority then arrives at a logical fallacy:
• Enrollment is not determinative of membership in some Indian tribes.
• The Oglala Sioux Tribe is an Indian tribe.
• Enrollment is not determinative of membership in the Oglala Sioux Tribe.
*247[¶ 40] Because this fallacious reasoning is in the nature of dicta, unnecessary to deciding the case, I concur in the result.
[¶ 41] Dale V. Sandstrom.