5 Tribes file amicus brief supporting Mississippi Choctaws
http://www.cherokeephoenix.org/Article/index/9866?utm_content=buffer261b4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
WASHINGTON – The Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee (Creek), Seminole and Cherokee nations have filed an amicus brief supporting the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians’ U.S. Supreme Court case involving a minor who was sexually assaulted while working at a Dollar General store.
The civil suit was first filed in the Mississippi tribe’s court by the family of the minor, a young boy participating in the Choctaws’ Youth Opportunity Program. It alleges that the Dollar General’s store manager sexually assaulted the boy several times during work hours.
The 5 Tribes’ amicus brief states that each tribe exercises jurisdictions within Oklahoma’s boundaries.
“Each tribe’s constitution establishes a system of independent courts that, in accordance with applicable tribal and federal law, resolves disputes arising in tribal territory involving members and nonmembers. The question presented in this case concerns the scope of those courts’ jurisdiction. Amici thus have an interest in the Court’s resolution of that question.”
Cherokee Nation Assistant Attorney General John C. Young said the Supreme Court would address whether tribal courts have jurisdiction over civil tort claims against non-Indians who enter into consensual relationships with the tribe and whose conduct causes harm to Indian children on tribal land.
“Because tribal courts generally lack criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians, the ability to assert civil jurisdiction over non-Indians represents the sole means for the tribe to protect tribal citizens from harm caused by non-Indians on tribal land,” Young said. “The issue is of the utmost importance to the Cherokee Nation, as it touches upon the tribe’s sovereign right to govern and protect tribal citizens on tribal lands.”
He added that matters should be resolved exclusively before the tribal court as they are completely inappropriate for the state courts, which generally lack jurisdiction over tribal lands and have limited knowledge or interest in vindicating tribal law.
The ability to prosecute non-Native people within tribal court is an “incredibly important tool to have to protect our people,” Young said.
According to a National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center release, there will be hundreds of supporters rallying at 9 a.m. on Dec. 7 at the Supreme Court building. Dec. 7 is when oral arguments will begin in the Dollar General v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.
“Dollar General’s attempt to avoid any accountability for the alleged conduct of its supervisor through this case could have far-reaching and devastating consequences for the ability of Indian tribes to protect their Native women and children,” said Lucy Simpson, executive director of the NIWRC, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of 105 organizations. “Our Native women and children suffer the highest rates of violence and sexual assault in the United States, with the majority of those assaults committed by non-Indians.”
At 10:30 a.m., the group will walk to the U.S. Capitol Lawn Area 9 across from the Supreme Court, where a Monument Quilt will be on display throughout the rally, the release states.
Learn more about the Quilt Walk for Justice and amicus brief, go to www.niwrc.org or on the Quilt Walk Facebook page.
THIS IS NOT A BASHING ARTICLE/THREAD/SEED. Discuss the topic, stay on topic, offer some insight - help us solve the problem instead of being part of the problem. Thank you.
Tags
Who is online
67 visitors
As SCOTUS has stated so many times, tribes are, indeed, sovereign nations and have the constitutional rights to make their own laws/regulations/procedures without interference from Feds/states.
Montana and Hicks and Plains are the barometers for this case as they have already established precedence.
Thanks for the update, 1st.
I wish them the very best of luck! I hope that someone can put a stop to all this horrible treatment!
Yesterday, supposedly, SCOTUS heard the case and made their decision - now we are waiting for the opinion.
Ordinarily I'd venture a guess regarding the outcome …
Cherokee Nation Assistant Attorney General John C. Young said the Supreme Court would address whether tribal courts have jurisdiction over civil tort claims against non-Indians who enter into consensual relationships with the tribe and whose conduct causes harm to Indian children on tribal land.
I have put three words in bold italics as these are the words I believe should prove pivotal.
If in fact it is deemed that a "sovereign nation" is beyond de facto, then it should follow that the laws of that nation prevail.
My opinion.
Montana v. United States , 450 U.S. 544 (1981) - The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Crow Nation could regulate hunting and fishing on tribal lands, and had jurisdiction over “ conduct which threatens or has some direct effect” upon the tribe’s "political integrity, economic security, and health or welfare,
Under the "Montana Test", " The opinion states that tribes "inherent sovereign power to exercise some forms of civil jurisdiction over non-Indians on their reservations, even on non-Indian fee lands. A tribe may regulate , through taxation, licensing, or other means, the activities of nonmembers who enter consensual relationships with the tribe or its members, through commercial dealing, contracts, leases, or other arrangements.
Kinda sez it in a nutshell. Let's see if this court can/will follow the 1981 decision/opinion.
Do we know when we will hear back from SCOTUS?
Don't know Perrie - I keep on checking 'bout every two hours.
Here's hoping SCOTUS will have a just and favorable ruling.
From the National Law Review....
The Solicitor General of the United States had recommended that the Supreme Court not accept the case for review, arguing that the Fifth Circuit’s decision was correct and that there was no split among the circuits. Since four justices must agree to hear a case, it seems likely that four justices were dissatisfied with the Fifth Circuit’s decision and unpersuaded by the Solicitor.
In Montana v. U.S. , the Supreme Court held that tribes normally may not exercise jurisdiction over non-Indians but recognized exceptions where non-Indians enter into "consensual relations" with tribes and their members and where non-Indians engage in conduct that has "a direct effect on, the political integrity, economic security or health or welfare of the tribe". When first announced in 1981, the Montana exceptions seemed to provide ample sphere for tribes’ exercise of territorial sovereignty. Over time however, the Court has steadily encrusted the exceptions with qualifications and corollaries, radically constricting their scope.
While predictions are hazardous, the potential for a decision that will further diminish tribal sovereignty is apparent. The Court’s decision is likely to take its place in the important Montana v. U.S. line of cases defining tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians.
I see the handwriting on the wall....
- See more at:
I see the handwriting on the wall....
I do so hope you are wrong this time, Kavika. But.....
I hope that I'm wrong as well mimi, but past history is not in our favor. There was no reason for SCOTUS to take this case. The four judges that accepted it have one thing in mind IMO. It isn't to help Indians, but to take away more of the sovereignty of the nations.
Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Alito.
Sotomayer, Kagan, Thomas, Breyer, Ginsburg
Roberts, Scalia and Alito have voted anti-tribe/nation 98% of the time.
" Neither the advocates or the Justices took the time to address an important aspect of the historical arguments made in this case: what weight should be accorded to discerned intent of federal Indian policies rooted in eras vastly different than today’s federal government support for tribal self-determination. The Court heard at least some historical arguments from all of the advocates. Yet none of the advocates provided context for why their view of history was more compelling, and none of the Justices took the questions of weight and context head on. The questions of Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and, to a lesser extent, Chief Justice John Roberts reflected skepticism of both the abilities of tribal courts and the constitutionality of allowing non-Indians to be subjected to civil jurisdiction for torts in tribal courts. Conversely, the questions of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan suggested varying degrees of confidence in tribal courts and support for the argument that tribal courts are endowed with at least a degree of clear civil jurisdiction over non-Indians. "
Excellent analysis -
Bottom line is that some of them are saying that you can't trust an Indian to render a just verdict.
Only non Indian courts can do that...WTF
No, you can't trust an Indian when dealing with White people - kinda like a "mirror" effect, ya know? Sorta like what goes around comes around.
Anybody can be prosecuted in Indian Country. Typically, for a “Major” crime, the feds and tribe/nation can prosecute Indian accused, Indian victim, and Indian accused and non-Indian victim; feds can prosecute non-Indian accused and Indian victim, states can prosecute non-Indian accused and non-Indian victim.
For non-major crimes, tribes/nations can prosecute Indian accused and Indian victim, feds and tribes/nations can prosecute Indian accused and non-Indian victim; the feds can prosecute non-Indian accused and Indian victim; and states can prosecute non-Indian accused and non-Indian victim.