Supreme Court Asks DOJ for Its Views on ICWA Case

The U.S. Supreme Court has asked the Department of Justice for the views of the federal government to help it decide whether to accept Hogan v. Kaltag Tribal Council, a case in which Alaska questions whether federally recognized tribes can resolve Indian Child Welfare Act cases, as reported by Indianz.com on April 26.

The case involves a mother who was convicted of murder and had a drinking problem. The father did not want anything to do with the child. The Kaltag tribe took custody, and the child was adopted, with the consent of all parties involved, by a Native family that lives in Huslia. But the state’s attorney general, contending that the state's court system takes precedence over a tribal court, wants to put a stop to it.

To learn more about the case, go to: www.narf.org/sct/caseindexes/current/hoganvkaltag.html

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal in Redskins Trademark Challenge

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected without comment an appeal by a group of Native American activists that claims that the Washington Redskins' team name is "offensive, disparaging, and demeaning and perpetrates a centuries-old stereotype," USA Today reported this morning.

The team started using the Redskins name in 1933; and the trademark was first issued in 1967. The Native American group filed its lawsuit in 1992.

The Supreme Court’s decision lets stand a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the activists waited too long to challenge the trademark.

Supreme Court strikes down tribal jurisdiction

In a 5-4 decision the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe does not have jurisdiction over a non-Indian bank doing business on the reservation. In Plains Commerce Bank v. Long, the Court reversed the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the bank was subject to tribal jurisdiction.

Plains Commerce Bank, a non-Indian bank, sold land it owned in fee simple on the CRST reservation to non-Indians. The Longs, an Indian couple who had been leasing the land with an option to purchase, claimed the bank discriminated against them by selling the parcel to nonmembers of the tribe on terms more favorable than the bank offered to sell it to them. The couple sued in tribal court, asserting discrimination, breach-of-contract, and bad-faith claims. Over the bank's objection, the tribal court concluded that it had jurisdiction and proceeded to trial, where a jury ruled against the bank on three claims, including the discrimination claim.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts said once the land was sold in fee simple to non-Indians, it passed beyond the tribe’s control. And the mere resale of the land to non-Indians did not threaten the tribe’s interests.

Roberts drew a distinction between the sale of the land and non-Indian activity on the land. Precedent, he said, did allow for the tribe to protect its interest in guarding the health or safety of its member by regulating non-Indian activity on the land.

“But the key point is that any threat to the tribe’s sovereign interests flows from changed uses or non-member activities, rather than from the mere fact of resale,” Roberts wrote.

Justices Ginsberg, Stevens, Souter and Breyer dissented.

Oral Arguments in Plains Commerce Bank

For impressions of the oral arguments on Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle visit Turtle Talk. The issue in Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle was whether tribal courts have jurisdiction over a dispute between a nontribal bank and a company that is majority Indian-owned.