United Tribes ) Michigan - Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians

members of the Tribe sought to intervene,
contending that the proposed settlement
approved by the Tribal Council disposed
not only of the Tribe's claims but also
claims of individual tribal members to nonmonetary
tribal assets. The court denied the
members' motion to intervene, holding that
the settlement did not dispose of individual
member rights and that the council had
authority to settle tribal rights: "By
definition, tribal assets are owned by the
Tribes, not individual members. Therefore,
although the Proposed Intervenors
certainly have a political or personal
interest in the disposition of tribal assets,
they do not have any 'legally protectable
interest' in tribal assets."
In U.S. v. Danley, 2011 WL 6935341
(D.S.D.), Danley was charged with
assaulting, resisting, or impeding an
"officer or employee of the United States"
after he allegedly assaulted Thomas
Adams, a Sisseton—Wahpeton Sioux Tribal
Police Officer performing law enforcement
services pursuant to a contract between
the Tribe and the Bureau of Indian Affairs
under the Indian Self-Determination
Act (ISDA). Danley moved to dismiss
the indictment, contending that Adams
was not a federal officer because he had
not received a special law enforcement
commission from the BIA, as required
by the ISDA contract. "Whether or not
a special commission or designation is
required by statute, the regulations, or by
the § 2804 agreement (or 638 contract),
such designation is not, as a matter of law,
a prerequisite for the officer in question to
be considered a federal officer. ..."
In McCrary v. Ivanof Bay Village, 265 P.3d
337 (Alaska 2011), Ivanoff Bay Village, an
Alaska Native Village (Tribe) included on
the Department of Interior's list of tribes
published in the Federal Register, hired
McCrary to lead economic development
efforts. When the Tribe terminated
the contract and refused to reimburse
Inchon Nations Law Focus
McCrary's expenses, McCrary sued the
Tribe and its president, Shangin, under two
contracts, alleging breaches of the implied
covenants of good faith and fair dealing.
The superior court dismissed the suit based
on sovereign immunity and the Alaska
Supreme Court affirmed: "Because Ivanof
Bay is a federally recognized tribe, it is
entitled to sovereign immunity. Ivanof Bay
and Shangin, as its president, are immune
from suit in state court."
In Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v.
Department of Environmental Protection,
2011 WL 6934533 (Fla App. 2011), the
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, as part of an Everglades
restoration project, condemned certain
tracts of land owned by the Miccosukee
Tribe in fee simple. The Tribe sued,
alleging that the condemnation action was
barred by the Tribe's sovereign immunity
and that the condemnation violated the
Indian Nonintercourse Act (INA). The
Florida appellate court disagreed, holding
that (1) the condemnation act was in rem
and did not require the consent of the
landowner and (2) the INA did not apply:
"Thus, once a tribe owns land in fee
simple, the Nonintercourse Act provisions
simply do not apply."
In Martinez v. Pojoaque Gaming, Inc.,
264 P.3d 725, 2011 (N.M. App. 2011),
Martinez, an employee of Pojoaque
Gaming, Inc. (PGI), a corporation owned
by Pojoaque Pueblo (Pueblo), a federally
recognized Indian tribal government, filed
a worker's compensation claim with the
state worker's compensation administration
(WCA) against PGI and the Tribe's gaming
commission for injuries arising out of
his employment. After Martinez won his
claim before the WCA, he was terminated.
He brought new claims before the WCA
alleging illegal retaliation. A WCA judge
ruled that PGI had waived its immunity
from suit but held that he could not order
PGI to re-hire Martinez. The New Mexico
appellate court disagreed and ordered PGI
to rehire Martinez.
In Bradley v. Bear, 2012 WL 167337 (Kan.
App.), Robert and Geraldine Schuetz
owned real estate within the Kickapoo
Nation Indian Reservation in fee simple
title. When they died, their children filed
descent proceedings in state court and
became owners of undivided interests in
the real estate as tenants in common. They
initially operated a farming operation on
the land under an oral partnership. Later,
all but one of the children decided to
dissolve the estate and split the proceeds. A
state court entered judgment dissolving the
estate but, on appeal by one of the children,
the Kansas Court of Appeals reversed,
holding that the state court lacked
jurisdiction over the Indian-owned fee
land: "[T]he Kickapoo Tribal Court is
the proper court to resolve this dispute
between Indians about business performed
on the reservation and land located on the
reservation. ... [T]here is no connection
between the State's ability to tax a
particular piece of real property and the
State's subject matter jurisdiction over civil
matters that arise from that property. ...
[T]he idea that all real estate matters
should be determined in state court for
record-keeping purposes completely
contradicts the long-standing principle
that Indian tribes are sovereign nations
that exercise sovereign authority over their
members and territories."
In James v. American Indian Health
Services, Inc., 2012 WL 130719 (Cal.
App.2d Div. 2012), the executive director
of American Indian Health Services,
Inc. (AIHS), a Californian nonprofit
corporation that provides free health care
to urban Indians with funding under the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act
(IHCIA), removed four board members
who, the executive director determined,
did not meet the Indian status requirements
of the IHCIA act or the bylaws of
February 2012 I Page 7
48