You are here

American Indian law

Scope of Tribal Authority Tested by Domestic Violence Cases

The Penobscot and Passamaquoddy tribes are seeking the power to try domestic violence cases involving non-tribal members, the Portland Press Herald's Colin Woodard reports. The plan is setting up a dispute over the scope of tribal authority in Maine.

A 2013 federal law expanded the authority for tribes to try domestic violence crimes involving non-tribal members so long as tribal courts meet federal constitutional standards and provide legal counsel. A bill has been introduced in Maine to align that state's law with the 2013 amendment to the Violence Against Women Act as well as to give the Penobscots expanded criminal jurisdiction for offenses that involve sentences up to three years.

The Maine Attorney General's Office argues that federal law does not apply to Maine tribes because "the Maine Settlement Act of 1980, which says that no federal Indian law is applicable within Maine if it 'affects or pre-empts the civil, criminal or regulatory jurisdiction of the State of Maine' unless Congress explicitly specifies it is to apply to the Maine tribes," Woodard reports.

Tribal leaders counter that the bill would enable to them to better protect women abused by their non-American Indian intimate partners.

Could Trademark Law Change From Redskins Fight?

NPR's Kenya Downs mused in a recent post whether the fight over the propriety of the Washington Redskins' trademark could end up changing this body of law. After years and years of efforts by American Indian activists to have the trademark canceled on the grounds that it is racially offensive and disparaging, petitioners won the cancellation of the trademark and the U.S. Department of Justice also has decided to intervene in the lawsuit. The team's owner argues that the Lanham Act, which prohibits disparaging trademarks, is too vague and an unconstitutional impediment to free speech, but trademark attorneys told Downs that the First Amendment challenge to the Lanham Act will be a tough sell. However, lawyers said the case's outcome, whether the football team wins or not, will impact whether ethnic groups can challenge trademarks as offensive.

Alaskan Tribes Given More Power to Protect Women

Alaska Native tribes will now be able to prosecute domestic violence crimes committed against American Indians by non-Natives, The Washington Post's Sari Horwitz reports. A previous amendment to the Violence Against Women Act gave jurisdiction to tribal courts to prosecute domestic violence crimes and address the lack of legal protection that Native women have from assailants, but Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) added an exemption for Alaska Native tribes. Murkowski supported the rollback of the exemption.

American Indian Youth Face 'Isolation of Incarceration' in Juvenile Justice System

The Washington Post's Sari Horwitz continues that newspaper's fantastic coverage of issues in Indian Country. This latest installment looks at how American Indian youth sent into the juvenile justice system are just locked away most of the time. There is no schooling, counseling or vocational opportunity at the juvenile facilities like the one on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota (which has been known to be the poorest part of the entire United States), just the "isolation of incarceration." When serious cases are handled by federal prosecutors, juveniles are sent into the federal system where there is no juvenile division or probation system for juveniles. In contrast, the juvenile facility on the Rosebud Reservation seeks to integrate "'traditional Lakota cultural information, and rehabilitate our youth by bridging the gaps they might have with their identities and who they are.'"

Court Rules Tribe's Corporate Entity Doesn't Have Sovereign Immunity

A sharply divided New York Court of Appeals ruled that a golf course owned by the Seneca Indian Nation doesn't have sovereign immunity shielding it from lawsuits, according to an AP report. The builder of the golf course, which is close to Niagara Falls, has sued over money it says it is owed on the course's construction contract. The majority held that the corporate entity, a wholly owned subsidiary that owns the golf course, is not immune from suit because it can't bind tribal money and the Senecas don't own the golf course land. The dissent said there was no rational basis to distinguish the subsidiary from its corporate parent, which is an arm of the tribe and does have immunity.

Second Circuit Upholds Tribal Leader's Conviction

Submitted by Amaris Elliott-Engel on Wed, 11/12/2014 - 08:23

Here's a piece I wrote for the Connecticut Law Tribune regarding a former president of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation who, despite being a strong advocate for American Indian rights, is now serving a federal prison sentence for embezzling from the tribe:

Michael Thomas had a reputation as a "tireless and effective advocate" for the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation, and he rose to president of the tribal council, a position he held for nine years, despite a difficult childhood. But now, with his conviction recently upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Thomas will spend 18 months in federal prison for embezzling more than $100,000 in tribal funds.

It could have been worse for the former leader of the tribe that runs the successful Foxwoods Resorts Casino. When U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton sentenced Thomas, she took into account his advocacy for American Indian rights and gave him a sentence that was more lenient than federal guidelines "to reflect [the] defendant's positive work for the tribe."

Over a two-year period, Thomas used his tribal American Express card to pay over $100,000 in personal expenses. Most of the money Thomas embezzled was spent on a car service he hired to bring his mother to and from her dialysis and other medical appointments, at $450 per trip. He also spent tribal money on Direct TV for his personal residence, Sirius XM Satellite Radio for his personal vehicle and cell phone service for two of his associates, among other expenditures.

Tribal law prohibited the use of the tribal-issued AmEx card to pay for personal expenses. Thomas himself signed that tribal resolution as the council chairman. But Thomas alleged that personal items could be charged on his card as long as they were reimbursed.

Prosecutors countered that Thomas had no way to repay the charges. His personal income was in decline and his personal checking account was overdrawn every month. Thomas also never reimbursed or attempted to reimburse the tribe for any portion of the $100,000 of the personal charges.

He was ousted from his elected position in 2009.

In the latest development, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld Thomas' conviction on narrow grounds last month.

Thomas had been convicted of theft from an Indian tribal organization and theft from a tribal government that received $10,000 in federal funds. He agreed that his intention to repay the funds was not in itself a defense to charges of theft and embezzlement. But Thomas's counsel, Steven Rasile of the Law Offices of Mirto & Rasile in West Haven, argued that Thomas's "intent to repay, when coupled with the tribe's practice of permitting [Thomas] to place personal expenses on the tribe's charge card and reimburse them later could have demonstrated that the defendant lacked the requisite intent to commit the crimes with which he was charged."

The district court held that it was not relevant to the case that Thomas had previously reimbursed the tribe for $159,000 in personal expenses charged to his tribal-issued American Express card, or that Shalida Jones, another tribal councilor, had used her tribal credit card for $36,511 in personal expenses. If the defendant "had evidence that other tribal council members charged big-ticket items, like $80,000 of limo services, and went years without repaying, that's getting closer in comparability," Arterton said. "'From what the government is saying, there isn't any such evidence."

The Second Circuit panel of John Walker Jr., Jose Cabranes and Raymond Lohier Jr. rejected Thomas' contention that his due process rights were violated because he was not allowed to introduce that evidence at the trial.

"Even if the evidence at issue was sufficient to establish that the tribe, in practice, permitted its officials to charge personal expenses to their cards with subsequent reimbursement, such evidence would only have been relevant at trial if Thomas's conduct comported with that practice," the panel said. "Here, it is undisputed that Thomas did not reimburse the tribe for any of the over $100,000 in personal expenses that he charged to his card between October 2007 and September 2009—despite the fact that he was not indicted until January 2013."

Not only was Thomas' defense irrelevant to the crimes he was charged with, but the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing the jury, the court said.

The panel noted in footnotes that there were two issues of first impression in the case.

The first was whether theft from a tribal government could be prosecuted under a federal law that bars people from taking more than $5,000 in funds from programs that receive $10,000 or more in federal funds per year. While Thomas did not challenge federal jurisdiction over his embezzlement from the tribe, the panel did note that the Eighth Circuit has affirmed convictions in federal court for people who have stolen from a tribal government.

The second issue of first impression was whether a defendant's intent to repay funds can be used as a defense to charges of embezzlement and theft. The panel noted that, while it has not decided directly if a defendant's intent to repay funds is a defense to charges of embezzlement and theft, the Second Circuit has issued an unpublished opinion citing a First Circuit's ruling that "'an intent to return money or property is not a defense to the charge of embezzlement.'"

Rasile, Thomas' counsel, declined comment. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Christopher Mattei and Marc Silverman wrote the brief for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Connecticut. Mattei argued the case before the Second Circuit. That office declined comment as well.

 

Navajo Presidential Candidate Disqualified Over Language Fluency

A candidate to become president of the Navajo Nation has been disqualified from the ballot because he is not fluent in Navajo, the Associated Press' Felicia Fonseca reports. Chris Deschene is asking the Navajo Nation Council to pass legislation to make voters the sole decision-makers on whether a presidential candidate is fluent in the language.

The nation's Supreme Court dismissed Deschene's appeal for not including a copy of his disqualification order with his appeal, the AP further reports.

United Nations, US Still Treating American Indian Tribes As Dependent #IndigenousPeoplesDay

Last month, the United Nations General Assembly approved a document to strengthen the rights of indigenous peoples around the world as part of a meeting of international leaders. However, Steven Newcomb, writing for Indian Country Today Media Network, says that it is clear that American Indian tribes are not being recognized as sovereign nations by the United Nations or by the United States: "What the United States government is supporting in the United Nations is an international recognition of the United States’ imposed 'domestic dependent nation' status for our Originally Free Nations, a status premised on the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination. The U.S. is fully supportive of that 'domesticated' and 'tribal' status being recognized in the United Nations because it serves to validate in the international arena the centuries-old, 'under-the-thumb' system of US domination and Original Nation subjection, which is typically called U.S. federal Indian law and policy."

Ninth Circuit Rejects Tribal-Court Convictions Without Lawyers

The Ninth Circuit has ruled that past criminal convictions in American Indian courts can't count as proof of a defendant's criminal history if defendants weren't guaranteed the right to an attorney, The Guardian reports. Michael Bryant Jr. was convicted of domestic assault in Northern Cheyenne Tribal Court but didn't have an attorney. While the Eighth and Tenth Circuits have found that tribal convictions aren't governed by the American Constitution, the Ninth Circuit has ruled that Bryant's conviction wasn't legal because the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to an attorney.

2nd Circuit Upholds Regulation of American Indian Payday Lenders

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that New York's top financial regulator can tackle online lending businesses run by two American Indian tribes in Oklahoma and Michigan, the New York Times reports: "In their lawsuit, the tribes — the Otoe Missouria Tribe in Red Rock, Okla., and the Lac Vieux Desert Bank of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians in Watersmeet, Mich. — argued that their sovereign status shielded them from the reach of New York State. The appeals court disagreed, outlining in a 33-page opinion that the borrowers reside in New York and received the loans, 'certainly without traveling to the reservation.”'

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - American Indian law