Here are the materials in Desautel v. Dupris (E.D. Wash.):
Contributors
Top Posts
- Tenth Circuit Decides Seminole Indian Country Habeas Appeal (Effectively Reversing Oklahoma Criminal COA)
- Tribal Court Brief in Muscogee (Creek) Nation Tribal Court Jurisdiction Appeal
- Supreme Court Decides Arizona v. Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona -- Federal Law Preempts Arizona's Proof of Citizenship Voting Form
- New Scholarship on the "American Indian Child Welfare Crisis of the 1960s and 1970s"
- Grand Canyon Skywalk Developer David Jin Dies of Cancer
THESE ARE QUESTIONS I POSED TO MY CLASS AT UNM SOUTHWEST INDIAN LAW CLINIC.
Just the latest district court ruling that Tribal Membership is an internal matter and a Federal District Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Santa Clara v Martinez remains of great vitality despite a couple recent Administrative Branch (BIA/DOI) decisions to interfere in tribal membership disputes where membership was based in “Treaty Rights” or reliance on previous acts by the tribe granting recognition. Question: Should a tribe which has been “restored” or “ re-recognized” based upon administrative and court filings indicating the bases of its’ membership in order to “qualify” for federal recognition later disavow their administrative and court filings to dis-enroll members or deny membership to the members and their descendents that formed part of their qualification for administrative restoration, court decree restoration or Federal Acknowledgement Process? Is this an admission of fraud and/or misrepresentation such that a Federal District Court could find subject matter jurisdiction in the membership dispute under “federal question” jurisdiction? What about the Tribe’s sovereign immunity? Can sovereign immunity be sustained when a “tribe”, “tribal council” or “tribal officials” act outside the scope of their authority by commission of fraud?