Walking On Common Ground: Pathways to equal Justice Report

Additional Considerations

Challenges: There may not be recognition that the choice of forum can be the choice of remedy. It may be difficult for tribal courts to ensure an independent judiciary, based on appropriate models with appropriate sanctions (e.g., banishment) when faced with decisions that may have political impact.

Responses:

• Enact civil, criminal, and administrative statutes, with education (perhaps mandated) for government and justice system officials;
• Review and revise tribal codes with community input; and
• Create a central website with resources and general information on tribal, federal, and state law.

Discussion Topic Two: Recognition of Judgments and Orders

As tribal courts develop and improve, they are increasingly empowered by the opportunity to handle a wider array of cases. Recognition and collaboration to accept this expanded responsibility sometimes creates conflict and confusion between jurisdictions. For example, domestic orders issued by a tribal court may be ignored at the state level or by other tribes. Many times state orders are difficult for the tribal courts to uphold because of limited resources and/or unclear definition of their jurisdiction. Developing a clear process for addressing these challenges is critical to the healthy maturation of tribal courts.

Promising Practice: Project Passport

Across the country, states and tribes are adopting the model template developed through Project Passport. The goal of Project Passport is simple: improve recognition and enforcement of protection orders between states and tribes by using a common, recognizable first page for those orders. Originally developed as a regional effort led by Kentucky, the template and the success of Project Passport has spread throughout the South and has begun to have an impact on the West.

What makes Project Passport especially useful? The common template means that data points are collected in common, authentication is simplified, proper identification is made easier, and protection can be provided more rapidly and consistently—strengthening the safety net for battered women and their children.

Adopted from “Extending Project Passport,”
National Center for State Courts.
For more information contact Denise O. Dancy, Project Director, at (757) 259-1593 or ddancy@ncsc.dni.us.

Michigan Tribal-State Forum

The Michigan Supreme Court, through funding from the National Center for State Courts, appointed the State Court and Tribal Court Forum in 1992. The purpose of the forum was to foster cooperation between the state and tribal justice systems within Michigan. The State of Michigan has twelve federally recognized tribes, with all but two operating their own justice systems. The federally recognized tribes are listed in the annual directory issue of the Michigan State Bar Journal. Tribal materials are currently available through the State Law Library, Michigan has an active State Bar Standing Committee on American Indian Law, with a growing American Indian Law Section of the State Bar, in addition to the Michigan Indian Judicial Association.

In May of 1996, the Tribal-State Forum adopted the Michigan Court Rule 2.615, Enforcement of Tribal Judgments, which operates on a principle of comity. The rule directs state courts to recognize and enforce the judgments and other rulings of tribal courts, to the extent that those tribes reciprocate. This rule applies to orders from any federally recognized tribe, including those outside the State of Michigan. This led to the development of tribal rules and ordinances concerning enforcement of state judgments. The court systems communicate via the State Court Administrative Office website.

While the Tribal-State forum does not currently meet, the state continues to support efforts to define and establish protocols for working with the tribal governments on issues of concern. Some areas being addressed include protection of tribal members and communities from domestic violence, recognition of key state tribal issues, non-casino economic development, and protection of shared water resources.

Source: Chapter 2 Civil Procedure, Subchapter 2.600. Judgments and Orders; Postjudgment Proceedings; MCR 2.615 (2004); Rule 2.615 Enforcement of Tribal Judgments.

A Closer Look: Recognition of Judgments and Orders

Process & Comity Standards

Challenges: There is a need for sustainable, inter (and intra) state standards for comity, recognition, and enforcement of tribal court orders. The process for developing standards is complex due to the many variables involved. It is difficult to find and focus on the commonalities. Particular problems exist with verification of orders and the development of sustainable protocols.

Responses:

• Leadership should foster institutional buy-in and develop relationships and guidelines (like model codes, protocols, memoranda of understanding) through national organizations and associations and informally through greater social interaction between tribal and non-tribal entities;
• Bring external stakeholders together to brainstorm solutions;
• Provide orientation materials on tribal courts and comity for new attorneys, as well as curriculum and CLEs, for national and state judicial colleges and conferences; and
• Create a mandatory tribal judicial coalition comprised of tribal, federal, and state judges, as well as legislators, to develop formal procedures, protocols, and agreements.

Tribal vs. State Orders

Challenges: Orders may not be recognized from other tribes and decisions may be judged by appearance rather than merit. Conflict may arise when there are different standards or conflicting judgments in tribal and state systems. When tribal resources are available, they are not always utilized by non-tribal entities. Tribal court orders may not always be filed in state court. Tribes do not always recognize orders from other tribes. State officials do not always have a great deal of familiarity with tribal courts. These issues frequently hinder collaborative efforts.

Responses:

• Create a uniform comity analysis and standards;
• Educate the general public and policymakers about tribes, tribal courts, and the importance of comity through the use of written articles, public presentations, and sponsorship of media events;
• Promote educational opportunities through forums such as the American Bar Association, National American Indian Court Judges Association, the National Congress of American Indians, and the National Center for State Courts;
• Enact federal legislation to require full faith and credit for tribal court orders, provided that the tribal court afforded appropriate due process;
• Support legislation requiring state agencies to work with tribes; and
• Develop uniform certification of accuracy and a mechanism of support for litigants to encourage filing in state court.

Education & Training

Challenges: Tribal court issues, procedures, and laws are often misunderstood. Resources for tribal community members are often limited, and misconceptions exist about the availability of funding for operation of tribal courts. Internal court infrastructure is sometimes weak. Non-tribal attorneys practicing in tribal courts are not always informed on tribal court operations.

Responses:

• Develop formal and informal training opportunities with tribal and state courts to enhance learning about each other's systems;
• Include tribal law at mock trials and as part of law school curriculum as well as part of conference training materials;
• Provide cross-training and shadowing opportunities;
• Publish tribal opinions and codes; and
• Support and encourage open communication between tribal, federal, and state courts by all court staff.

Communication & Understanding

Challenges: Courts may not be aware of orders that have been issued or that litigation is pending – partially due to lack of communication and the large number of pro se litigants and partially due to general unfamiliarity with tribal courts.

Responses:

• Justice systems should develop a verified pleading requirement that notifies if an action is pending in another court between the parties or involving the same subject matter;

• The court and case information should be provided and the judge should have an opportunity to reject the pleading;

• There should also be courthouse facilitators to help pro se litigants with forms;

• Develop a tribal and state court contact list for each state that is also available electronically; and

• Identify and publish educational opportunities through a central website

Capacity & Competency of Tribal Courts

Challenges: Legal systems may not always understand the complexities of tribal courts and tribal government, including their capacity and competence.

Responses:

• Promote states to act in a review capacity to provide support for tribal courts, acknowledging they need to have a clear understanding of the capacity and function of the court; and
• Empower tribes to determine their capacity to deal with cases and be supported in assuming responsibility for their decisions.

Discussion Topic Three: Judicial Independence

There is a lot of skepticism about tribal judicial independence, which leads to mistrust of tribal judicial systems. Questions about judicial independence rose repeatedly throughout the Gathering, including:

• Are judges biased?
• Will judges favor some families over others?
• How about punishing adversaries more severely – is that something a judge will do?
• Will a judge lose their position – be removed by the tribal council – for making an unpopular decision?

These questions regarding judicial independence demonstrate that mistrust and limited education about the judicial systems are central concerns in ameliorating relationships between tribal, federal, and state courts. The Independence of the Judiciary summary separates these concerns into four topic areas, which explore problem and solution statements including:

• Discussions of community support and understanding;
• Structural or jurisdictional processes and independence;
• Economic independence of courts; and
• Court credibility

The remaining two topic areas, the role of the federal government in judicial review and the very nature and design of justice systems, whether adversarial or consensus-based, pose broader policy questions. Through greater knowledge of, and familiarity with, tribal justice systems, this challenge to judicial independence can be overcome.

State & Tribal Courts Sign Jurisdictional Agreement

One of the many high points of the Gathering in Green Bay, Wisconsin was the signing of the Teague Protocol, which is designed to resolve jurisdictional conflicts between Wisconsin’s judicial districts and five tribal courts. The Teague Protocol incorporates the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s guidelines for resolving jurisdictional issues between tribal and state courts. Those guidelines were laid out in the court’s 2003 decision, Jerry Teague v. Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians (Teague III).

According to Chief Judge David Raasch of the Stockbridge-Munsee Band of the Mohicans in Bowler, Wisconsin, the protocol establishes a procedure for the state court judge and tribal court judge to hold a conference to resolve questions of jurisdiction. As part of that process, the agreement establishes a number of factors to be considered, including whether the matter is one of tribal or state law, court and case costs, how far along the case is in the system, and tribal cultural issues. Even in areas where agreement is difficult, the protocol provides for the involvement of a third judge to help reach resolution.

In addition to Chief Judge Raasch and Judge Dorothy L. Bain of Wisconsin’s Ninth District, the protocol was signed by tribal court judges: Chief Judge Fred A. Ackley Jr., Sokaogon Chippewa Community (Mole Lake); Chief Judge Alice K. Soulier, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (Lac du Flambeau); Chief Judge Ervin Soulier, Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (Odanah); and Chief Judge Eugene White-Fish, Forest County Potawatomi Community (Crandon). Teague Protocol Guidelines: The Teague Protocol, adopted by the Ninth  Judicial District and the participating bands, establishes a set of Standards for Allocation of Jurisdiction.

Source: Wisconsin Law Journal, August 3, 2005

A Closer Look: Judicial Independence

Community Support & Education

Challenges: Community members may not fully recognize or support the tribal court’s role within the community or the decisions of the tribal judge. Limited educational opportunities are available for joint education of tribes, states, and communities on tribal courts. In particular, there is limited understanding of standard operating procedures for the courts, including the benefits and possible drawbacks of tribal courts. Government officials (such as tribal council, BIA, etc.) and the public may not fully understand the role of the court, judicial independence, or how separation of powers impacts court operations.

Responses:

Credibility, Independence & Separation of Powers

Challenges: Negative media can undermine individual decisions as well as the credibility of the entire judicial system. Local businesses and the public are impacted by the judge’s ability to remain neutral and maintain confidentiality. There is an assumption that judicial independence is necessary, but the problem is in promoting understanding that judicial independence can exist without a separation of powers in a consensus based justice system.

Responses:

• Encourage tribal members to seek the facts when dealing with the media and community perceptions;
• Encourage participation in events like the Gathering by a cross-section of community and professional individuals;
• Educate the tribal community and tribal council on the value of an independent court and identifying the community’s role in the court; and
• Establish a regional intertribal judicial oversight commission.

Court Structure & Process

Challenges: Outside influence can sometimes impact court decisions, and the infrastructure needed to support tribal courts may be limited or nonexistent. Terms for tribal judges may be relatively short. It may be difficult to incorporate traditional values and common law into tribal court systems and decisions (there may be pressure to conform to western ideals). For some tribes, council can sanction tribal courts for decisions they don’t agree with, placing tribal court independence in doubt. Separation of powers in the adversarial system may be at odds with traditional dispute resolution practices, creating a challenge to preserve cultural practices within a system that non-tribal entities and partners can accept.

Responses:

• Provide for the recognition of decisions based on traditional or cultural law within the structure of tribal codes, whether the law is written or unwritten;
• Explore the development of tribal codes or constitutional amendments that clearly define a true separation of powers, causes for removal, and specific lengths of judicial terms;
• Recognize that in some instances separation of powers is not culturally consistent. In those instances, tribes could seek ways to use their culture to bring tribal and state courts together;
• Assess standard operating procedures for the extent they complement tribal tradition; seek support from tribal government and tribal members for those procedures;
• Strengthen due process rights within tribal justice systems to improve confidence in the system by federal courts and avoid federal review of tribal court decisions;
• Establish a regional intertribal judicial oversight commission to ensure judicial integrity; and
•  Expose state court judges to dispute resolution models including visits to tribal courts.

Federal Review/U.S. Legal System

Challenges: Tribal courts may lose credibility if they choose not to adopt the U.S. version of standard operating procedures. There are questions about whether tribal courts should be free from federal review to ensure the tribal courts judicial independence. Federal review can impact tribal sovereignty and self-determination, and could ultimately result in tribal courts being perceived as administrative hearings prior to valid court appearances. Federal review may also impact cultural factors as part of tribal justice.

Responses:

• Strengthen due process rights within the tribal justice system to hopefully improve confidence in the system by federal courts and avoid federal review of tribal court decisions.

Discussion Topic Four: Indian Child Welfare Act

While the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) provides a framework for ensuring appropriate jurisdiction and placement for tribal youth, a number of challenges occur when implementing the Act. ICWA is under-mined by limited funding and education about its properties, which inhibits effective implementation of the Act. Foster care and support systems cannot keep up with the demand for services. Ensuring that children are properly identified as ICWA-eligible youth and providing for effective enforcement and compliance are challenges to developing common ground on disposition of ICWA cases. These issues are com-pounded when different philosophies and standards lead to weakened respect across the systems. The Gathering’s problem statements and their solutions regarding ICWA narrow in scope and, unlike the previous sections, emphasize the availability of resources.

The Indian Child Welfare Act

The Indian Child Welfare Act was established in 1978 by Congress in response to the alarmingly high number of Indian children being removed from their homes by both public and private agencies.

The intent of Congress under ICWA was to "protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families" (25 U.S.C. § 1902). ICWA sets federal requirements that apply to state child custody proceedings involving an Indian child who is a member of, or eligible for membership in, a federally recognized tribe. In 2003 an amendment to the Act was proposed through H.R. 2750 to provide clarification on areas of the law where implementation has been inconsistent or problematic; clarify and strengthen the process regarding voluntary adoptions of Indian children; provide mechanisms for Indian parents to receive more information on their rights and options under ICWA; and provide mechanisms for greater oversight of the law and deterrents to those who would purposely avoid applying the law (www.nicwa.org).

While the Indian Child Welfare Act provides a framework for ensuring appropriate jurisdiction and placement for tribal youth, the courts experience a number of implementation challenges, including limited funding and a lack of knowledge about its properties. In addition, foster care and support systems experience difficulties responding to the demands for services. Tribal and state courts struggle to ensure that children are properly identified as ICWA eligible youth. It can be difficult to provide for effective enforcement and compliance, which may create barriers to the development of common ground on disposition of ICWA cases. Many times these issues are compounded by differing philosophies and standards, which can weaken relationships and hinder the development of respect across the systems. The Gathering’s problem statements and the recommended solutions regarding ICWA are focused on the availability of resources. Group discussions around this topic were lively and focused on problem-solving to protect the interests of the children.

Source: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adoption/archive/ICWAexcerpt.htm

New York Tribal-Federal-State Courts Forum

In October of 2004, the tribes and courts of New York met to establish the mission and structure for their forum. The six-part mission of the forum is to develop educational programs for tribal judges and leaders, and tribal communities; provide information exchanges; train child care professionals, attorneys, judges, and law guardians on the provisions of ICWA; work to resolve jurisdictional conflicts and recognize judgments; foster cooperation and understanding; and enhance proper ICWA enforcement.

The eighteen member forum would include nine tribal court, four federal court and five state court representatives. Leadership for the forum would rotate every two years between tribal and non-tribal facilitators. The current plan is to meet at least once a year.

The inaugural project of the forum will be to hold a listening conference in Syracuse, New York on April 26–27, 2006. The agenda will focus on the fundamentals of Indian country jurisdiction, the tribal courts of New York State, Indian children in state family courts, and criminal jurisdiction. The conference will close with a problem-solving discussion.

Second Revised Tribal Forum Structure and Mission Statement (October 22, 2004)

A Closer Look: Indian Child Welfare Act

Education & Training

Challenges: Tribes and states may have different philosophical goals regarding dependency cases (i.e., states may perceive adoption as a success and long-term temporary placement as failure; tribes may view adoption as failure and maintaining connection to community as a primary goal). Parents do not understand ICWA language regarding attorneys. State social services or judges may be challenged to understand the role of custom and tradition in cases regarding Indian children.

Responses:

• Educate state and tribal judicial officers on child welfare matters, including the history of ICWA, intergenerational issues, advantages of tribal involvement in child welfare matters, cultural competence, etc.;
• Consider mandating education about ICWA by the Supreme Court;
• Provide awareness training on ICWA to tribal communities and others (service agencies/court personnel, medical personnel, doctors, nurses, etc.) in tribal, federal, and state systems;
• Create accountability through a legislative modification to ensure compliance with the ICWA and provide meaningful input on the definition of customs and traditions; and
• Use peacemaking for cases involving Indian children.

Resources

Challenges: Tribes have limited resources for timely respond to ICWA notices (manpower, attorneys, funding for services, etc.), which creates barriers to transfer or intervention in ICWA cases. State and tribal resources for foster care expenses, social services, day care, case load and work load are limited. Federal funding for child welfare services are encumbered, without a mechanism to insure that funds from the state follow the transfer of jurisdiction. Indian family foster homes, attorneys with ICWA experience, and social service systems improvement for tribes and states are limited. Parents are often under represented or go without representation in ICWA cases.

Responses:

• While Title IV-D allows for direct funding through child support enforcement programs, the federal government should make Title IV-E funds available directly to tribes;
• State governments should negotiate “pass-through” agreements for tribes to receive funds;
• Engage the community in ICWA – promoting development of foster homes, mentors, and system support;
• Reduce barriers to licensing of tribal foster homes and requirements for housing specifications;
• Specify the use of compact payments for child welfare services and protection (through a centrally established office); and
• Advocate for state and tribal social service agencies to receive equal funding;

Guidelines & Standards

Challenges: There is a need for clear definition of roles and the proper procedures under ICWA. ICWA children are not identified in a timely manner, and cases frequently involve conflicting approaches to domestic violence and child protective services. Courts may choose to separate siblings, especially when one is Native and others are not. There may be confusion about the processing of notices and the receipt of information. Tribes may not have access to information leads and may not provide adequate background checks for foster homes. Standards for foster care (i.e., space, bedding, electricity, wheelchair access) may not be culturally significant and can create barriers to licensing Indian families as foster care providers.

Responses:

• Develop a series of guides or bench books, written in basic terms, to define roles, rights, and responsibilities;
• Explore the ICWA impact when reviewing family background for initial intake and placement by social workers – including the importance of keeping siblings together (even if one is non-Native);
• Change public policy to recognize the relationship between domestic violence and child protection;
• Develop statutory agreement (e.g., SL 161) to provide better communication and cooperation (telephonically, etc.) and a way to insure the federal law does not terminate parental rights for non-reservation youth; and
• Explore changes to state foster care licensing standards.

Conclusion

Integrating tribal justice systems with county, state and federal justice systems for what may be over five hundred or more tribes will take substantial and sustained efforts. That effort began many years ago and began to take its present form beginning in Seattle and Santa Fe. Those conferences identified clear issues – many of which we still face, but areas where we have also made great strides forward. These include resolving jurisdictional differences, developing cross-jurisdictional orders, ensuring greater communication between court systems, ensuring adequate addressing of Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), and other issues.

In each effort it was recognized that dialogue, ongoing training, and ongoing formal relationships that transcend individual leadership are possible, but not without substantial and shared commitment at all levels of government. Remaining on a path that promotes misunderstanding, mistrust, and division promotes inequality and sends a message to our communities that conflict is more important than resolution. Sharing responsibility with other justice systems and working together to resolve individual cases effectively will save effort, energy, and even lives in the long run.

What we choose to do with the Gathering’s findings is really up to us. One common thread throughout the forum was the knowledge that the challenges would not resolve themselves by words alone. As Chief Judge Eugene White-Fish, President of the National American Indian Court Judges Association said, "Don’t let this road stop here – it needs to continue. We need to take it back to our communities... So that our people will have…equal justice."

This is where we find ourselves today. Resolution requires action, commitment, understanding, patience, and foresight. These are our common traits. It is time to move forward.

Key Recommendations

These recommendations are drawn from the summaries provided in the preceding pages. While not inclusive, this list is intended to capture some of the solutions that might assist in one or more of the topic areas. They are not listed in order of importance.

Communication & Understanding

Statutory & Regulatory Change: Tribal Jurisdiction

Statutory & Regulatory Change: Family Law

Resources, Funding & Personnel

This report and the key recommendations listed above illustrate a number of ways in which we may address the issues identified at the Gathering.

Tribal Forum Summary

In September, 2004, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, as President of the National Conference of Chief Justices sent letters to the Chief Justice of each state. The request intended to gather information to help set the national gathering agenda. Each state’s Chief Justice was asked to provide status updates on the number of tribal courts and if there is a state tribal judges association. Information was requested on any established written protocols or agreements between tribal, federal, and state courts. The Chief Justice then asked if their state had a formal Tribal-State Forum. While this information is limited to the responses provided by each State’s Chief Justice, it is not all-inclusive of the activities or resources available within each state. Additional information is also available through national sites, including the National Tribal Justice Resource Center website: www.tribalresourcecenter.org, the Tribal Court Clearinghouse: www.tribal-institute.org, and the National American Indian Court Judges Association: www.naicja.org/resources.

ALABAMA
Alabama Indian Affairs Commission
http://aiac.state.al.us
aiac@mindspring.net
Poarch Creek Indian Tribal Court 251-368-6658

ALASKA
Tanana Chief's Conference
http://www.tananachiefs.org/index.html
Alaska Native Justice Center
www.ciri.com/about_ciri/anjc.htm
Alaska Inter-Tribal Council
www.aitc.org
Listing of Tribal Courts:
www.thorpe.ou.edu/Aktribalct/index.html
See Tribal Resource Center listing Court systems and written procedures vary among tribes and villages

ARIZONA
David Withey, Tribal State and Federal Court Forum
dwithey@supremecourt.sp.state.az.us
www.supreme.state.az.us/stfcf/
Excellent resource materials
Yes. See Tribal Resource Center listing
Have written protocols under Admin. Order 2001-70.

ARKANSAS
No information available

CALIFORNIA
Intertribal Court of California
www.intertribalcourt.indian.com
intcourtcal@aol.net
Published Native American Resource Guide for Bench Officers
Three independent tribal courts; Intertribal court; Tribal housing court project See article on Tribal Justice in California, Winter 2003/04 at www.calindian.org/groundhog.winter2003.htm

COLORADO
Earnest House, Colorado Commission on Indian Affairs
Colorado Commission on Indian Affairs.
www.colorado.gov
2 tribal courts.
No formal forum. Good informal working relationship with 6th district and federal magistrate; mutual honoring of restraining orders

CONNECTICUT
3 Tribal Courts
Eastern Tribal Court Judges Association
Jill Tompkins (303) 735-2194
Jill.tompkins@colorado.edu

DELAWARE
No information available

FLORIDA
Billy Cypress, Chairman
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida
Miami, FL
2 Tribes – 1 Tribal Court
No formal agreements or forum

GEORGIA
No information available

HAWAII
No information available

IDAHO
www.isc.idaho.gov/participate.htm
Published Benchguide and Clerk’s Manual
10 Tribal Courts – includes Eastern Washington, Idaho, and Nevada
There is an association, written protocol, and a forum

ILLINOIS
No information available

IOWA
No information available

KANSAS
Kansas Office of Native American Affairs.
www.accesskansas.org

KENTUCKY
No information available

LOUISIANA
No information available

MAINE
2 Tribal Courts
No tribal association, Have written protocol and a forum
Maine has a unique relationship with Indian nations within its borders. ….The powers and jurisdiction of Tribal Courts is codified in law at 30 M.R.S.A. Section s 6209-A and 6209-B. Judgments of matters for which Tribal Courts will have jurisdiction will be afforded full faith and credit by the State Courts.

MARYLAND
No information available

MASSACHUSETTS
Have a Commission on Indian Affairs
No other information available

MICHIGAN
Michigan Indian Judicial Association
Hon. Ronald G. Douglas
Little River Band Ottawas
(989) 775-7075
judgerondouglas@chartermi.net
12 Tribal Courts
Have a tribal judges association, written protocol, and a tribal-state forum.

MINNESOTA
Judge Robert Schumacher
Minnesota Court of Appeals
St. Paul, MN
(651) 297-1009
Have 12 Tribal Courts and written protocol.
Have a tribal judges association
Judge Henry Buffalo
Shakopee Tribal Court
St. Paul, MN
(651) 644-4710
Have written protocol -Rule 10 of the general Rules of Practice to govern recognition of tribal court orders by state courts. There is a tribal-state forum.

MISSISSIPPI
Julie Decker, Staff Attorney
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
Philadelphia, MS 3935
(800) 545-1220
www.choctaw.org/judiciarysymposium
1 – Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
4 trial courts and the Choctaw Supreme Court. Developing a Wellness Court.
No – they do hold annual symposiums on Choctaw Tribal Courts.
Working to create a reciprocal agreement for drug courts.
There is no formal tribal-state forum.

MISSOURI
No information available

MONTANA
Indian Law Section of the Montana Bar
(406) 442-7660
attybill@montana.com
Indian Law Clinic at the Univ. of Montana School of Law
Tracy Labrin Rhodes, Director
Tracy.rhodes@umontana.edu
7 Tribal Courts
No tribal judges association, written protocols, or tribal-state forum

NEBRASKA
Nebraska Commission on Indian Affairs
www.indianaffairs.state.ne.us
Minority and Implementation Committee under The Nebraska State Bar, the Hon. John M. Gerrard Chair.
All four tribe's headquartered in Nebraska (Omaha, Ponca, Santee Sioux, and Winnebago) have Tribal Courts.
There is no judges association. Tribal Summits were held in 2001 and the 1994 per Governor's Memorandum of Gov. to Gov.

NEVADA
Intertribal Council of Nevada
http://itcn.org
Nevada Indian Commission
www.indiancommission.state.nv.us
National Tribal Justice Center,
National Judicial College, Reno NV
http://www.judges.org/specprogs/ntjc/

NEW HAMPSHIRE
No information available

NEW JERSEY
No information available

NEW MEXICO
New Mexico Indian Affairs Department
www.state.nm.us/oia
Yes, there are tribal courts and they have an association.
There is a Tribal State Judicial Consortium

NEW YORK
There are 9 Tribes, several with Tribal courts.
There is no formal tribal court association.
The State is currently developing a forum and written protocols.
Their first meeting will be held in Spring 2006.

NORTH CAROLINA
Commission of Indian Affairs
www.doa.state.nc.us/cia/indian.htm

NORTH DAKOTA
North Dakota Indian Affairs Commission
www.health.state.nd.us/ndiac_mission.htm
Tribal State accord between Standing Rock Sioux and state

OKLAHOMA
Oklahoma Indian Affairs Commission
www.oiac.state.ok.us/commission
Tribal Transportation Advisory Board

OHIO
No information available

OREGON
Oregon Legislative Commission on Indian Services
www.leg.state.or.us/cis/cisinfo.htm
Yes, there are tribal courts.
Statute and executive order mandate gov to gov relations.

PENNSYLVANIA
No information available

RHODE ISLAND
One Tribal Court - Narragansett Indian Tribal Court
No additional information available

SOUTH CAROLINA
No information available

SOUTH DAKOTA
Northern Plains Indian Law Center
www.law.und.edu/NPILC/nptjti.html
Watka Reconciliation Site
http://www.wakpasica.org
Yes, there are tribal courts.
There is a South Dakota Indian Child Welfare Act Commission, it is not currently active

TENNESSEE
No information available

TEXAS
No information available

UTAH
There are 6 tribal courts.
There was a tribal-state forum, it is inactive at this time.

VERMONT
No information available

VIRGINIA
No information available

WASHINGTON
Washington Court Directory of 27 Tribal Courts
Northwest Tribal Court Judges Association
Elizabeth Fry, Executive Director
(509) 826-6821
Whatcom County has written protocol for domestic violence protection orders.
There is not an active tribal-state forum at this time.

WEST VIRGINIA
No information available

WISCONSIN
Wisconsin Judicare
Published ICWA Manual
www.judicare.org/ilo.htm
11 Tribes – all have tribal courts or appeals commissions.
Wisconsin Tribal Judges Association
Chief.david2@juno.com
Yes, there is an active tribal-state forum and written protocol for tribal-state relations.

WYOMING
No information available.

Acknowledgements

Presenters and Session Moderators

• HON. SHIRLEY ABRAHAMSON, Chief Justice, Wisconsin Supreme Court
• HON. DOROTHY BAIN, Chief Judge, Wisconsin 9th Judicial District
• BRENDA BELLONGER, President/Attorney, North American Indian Legal Services, Inc.
• JAMES BOTSFORD, Director, Indian Law Office, Wisconsin Judicare
• HON. ANN WALSH BRADLEY, Justice, Wisconsin Supreme Court
• ROBERT H. (BOB) BROWN, JR., Senior Policy Advisor for Tribal Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
• HON. EDWARD BRUNNER, Judge, Barron County Circuit Court Branch II
• HON. DON COSTELLO, Tribal Courts Chief Judge, Coquille Indian Tribal Court and Tribal Court of the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians
• DENISE DANCY, Court Research Associate, National Center for State Courts
• GERALD DANFORTH, Chairperson (incoming), Oneida Nation of Wisconsin
• CRISTINA DANFORTH, Chairwoman (outgoing), Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin
• MARTINA GAUTHIER, Mediator, Permanency Planning for Indian Children Project, North American Indian Legal Services, Inc.
• A. ELIZABETH GRIFFITH, Associate Deputy Director for Policy, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
• DOMINGO S. HERRAIZ, Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
• LISA JAEGER, Tribal Government Specialist, Tanana Chiefs Conference
• HON. BJ JONES, Executive Director, Tribal Judicial Institute - University of North Dakota School of Law
• VINCENT KNIGHT, Executive Director, National Tribal Justice Resource Center
• EDWARD KRUEGER, Associate Dean, Fox Valley Technical College, Criminal Justice Division
• JAMES MARTIN, Administrator, Oneida Tribal Judicial System
• RICHARD MONETTE, Associate Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School
• STEVE MOORE, Senior Staff Attorney, Native American Rights Fund
• DENISE MORRIS, President/CEO, Alaska Native Justice Center
• REBECCA MURDOCK, Manager, Fox Valley Technical College, Criminal Justice Division
• STEPHEN PEVAR, ESQ., National Staff Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union
• HON. LAWRENCE PIERSOL, Chief United States District Judge, District of South Dakota
• HON. DAVID RAASCH, Chief Judge, Stockbridge Munsee Band of Mohicans and Project Coordinator, Fox Valley Technical College, Criminal Justice Division
• DAVID SELDEN, Law Librarian, Native American Rights Fund/National Indian Law Library
• CAROLYN SLYTER, Tribal Council Member, Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians
• HON. ANDREW SMALL, Associate Judge, Lower Sioux Community in Minnesota Tribal Court
• HON. WINNIFRED THOMAS, Deputy Chief Judicial Officer, Oneida Tribal Judicial System
• HON. WILLIAM THORNE, JR., Judge, Utah Court of Appeals
• MARK TILDEN, Staff Attorney, Native American Rights Fund TRACY TOULOU, Director, Office of Tribal Justice, U.S. Department of Justice
• JOHN VOELKER, Director of State Courts, Wisconsin Supreme Court
• HON. EUGENE WHITE-FISH, Chief Judge, Forest County Potawatomi Tribal Court and President, National American Indian Court Judges Association
• HON. LELAND WIGG-NINHAM, Chief Judicial Officer, Oneida Tribal Judicial System
• DAVID WILKINS, PH.D., Professor - American Indian Studies, University of Minnesota
• THOMAS YOUNKER, Tribal Council, Coquille Indian Tribe
• KAREN ZELLER Eri, Esq., Lawyer and Event Coordinator, Fox Valley Technical College, Criminal Justice Division

Advisors

• RENEE GIGER, Training and Technical Assistance Coordinator, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
• CHARLES CLOUD, Retired Chief Judge, Norfolk General District Court
• JO ANN HARRIS, Attorney at Law, National Institute for Trial Advocacy
• DAVID GRIGNON, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Tribal Historian, Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin
• JO ANN HARRIS, Attorney at Law, National Institute for Trial Advocacy

Fox Valley Technical College Staff

• KARI BAUER, Program Support
• KRISTINA DIEDRICK, Program Specialist
• GERRY CAVIS, Program Specialist
• ANGELA HIDDE, Technical Assistant
• AMY LETTAU, Technical Support
• JODI MARTIN, Graphic Assistant
• DEVIN RIECKMANN, Technical Support
• DAVE ROGERS, Program Specialist
• NANCY RUDDY, Program Support
• JASON STERLING, Technical Support
• JUDY YEH, Technical Support

Discussion Group Facilitators

• CONNIE BEAR KING, Coordinator, Community Initiative for Native Children and Families
• THOMAS BEGICH, Consultant, CWR Communications
• BRENDA BELLONGER, President/Attorney, North American Indian Legal Services, Inc.
• JULIA CORTY, Consultant, National Institute of Trial Advocacy
• JOSE DIMAS, Government Relations Associate, National Center for State Courts
• HON. H. CHICO GALLEGOS, Associate Director, Native American Alliance Foundation
• HON. JERRY GARDNER, Executive Director, Tribal Law and Policy Institute
• VINCENT KNIGHT, Executive Director, National Tribal Justice Resource Center
• STEVEN LIGHT, Associate Professor, University of North Dakota, Department of Political Science and Public Administration
• DENISE MORRIS, President/CEO, Alaska Native Justice Center
• HON. ALICE SENECHAL, Magistrate Judge, US District Court of North Dakota
• PAUL STENZEL, Attorney at Law, Stenzel Law Office, LLC
• JOHN VOELKER, Director of State Courts, Wisconsin Supreme Court

Discussion Group Recorders

• HON. MARY ADAMS, Deputy Chief Judicial Officer, Oneida Tribal Judicial System
• ROXANNE AUGE, Local Government Specialist, Alaska Department of Commerce
• PENNY CARTER, Clerk of Court, Forest County Potawatomi Court
• DEBRA FLUTE, Tribal Judicial Institute - UND School of Law
• MARTINA GAUTHIER, Mediator, North American Indian Legal Services, Inc.
• PEG HARTMAN, National Institute for Trial Advocacy Central
• SUSAN HOLLINGSWORTH, Tribal Court Facilitator, Tanana Chiefs Conference
• BARBARA NELSON, Program Specialist, Fox Valley Technical College, Criminal Justice Division
• KATHRYN RAND, Associate Professor and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, University of North Dakota School of Law
• JULIE ANNE RICH, Supreme Court Commissioner, Wisconsin Supreme Court
• MICHELLE RIVARD PARKS, Associate Deputy Director, Tribal Judicial Institute – University of North Dakota School of Law
• BETTY STEGER, Consultant, Elizabeth D. Steger, Inc.
• LYNN SUDBECK, Deputy State Court Administrator/General Legal Counsel, State Court Administrator's Office
• SHIRLEY CAROLYN WILSON, Program Attorney, National Tribal Judicial Center at The National Judicial College

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE
OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
810 Seventh Street NW, Fourth Floor
Washington, DC 20531
Ph: (202) 616-6500
Fax: (202) 305-1367
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

Fox Valley technical college
Criminal justice center for innovation
2320 Industrial Drive
Neenah, WI 54956
Ph: (888) 370-1752
Fax: (920) 996-7192
www.fvtc.edu/cjci

Many agencies contributed to the development of the Walking on Common Ground Gathering. We wish to thank the following working group partners for their time, talent, and recommendations:

FEDERAL

AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE AFFAIRS Desk,
OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Washington, DC - www.ojp.usdoj.gov/americannative

OFFICE OF TRIBAL JUSTICE, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Washington, DC - www.usdoj.gov/otj/

US ATTORNEY, MINNESOTA
Minneapolis, MN - www.usdoj.gov/usao/mn/

U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE – EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Milwaukee, WI - www.usdoj.gov/usao/wie/

US DISTRICT COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Grand Forks, ND - www.ndd.uscourts.gov/

TRIBAL

COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBAL COURT
North Bend, OR - www.coquilletribe.org

TRIBAL COURT OF THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF COOS,
LOWER UMPQUA AND SIUSLAW INDIANS
Coos Bay, OR - www.ctclusi.org/index.asp

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI TRIBAL COURT
Crandon, WI - www.fcpotawatomi.com/

STOCKBRIDGE MUNSEE BAND OF MOHICAN INDIANS Tribal Court
Gresham, WI - www.mohican.com/

ONEIDA TRIBE OF INDIANS OF WISCONSIN Tribal Judicial System
Oneida, WI - www.oneidanation.org

NATIONAL

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
Chicago, IL - www.abanet.org/index.cfm

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INDIAN LEGAL SERVICES
Wausau, WI - www.judicare.org/nails.html

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CHIEF JUSTICES
Williamsburg, VA - www.ccj.ncsc.dni.us/

NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION
Boulder, CO - www.naicja.org/

NATIONAL TRIBAL JUSTICE RESOURCE CENTER
Boulder, CO - www.tribalresourcecenter.org

TRIBAL JUDICIAL INSTITUTE at the UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA SCHOOL OF LAW
Grand Forks, ND www.law.und.nodak.edu/NPILC/nptjti.html

NATIVE AMERICAN ALLIANCE FOUNDATION
Albuquerque, NM - www.native-alliance.org

THE TRIBAL LAW & POLICY INSTITUTE
West Hollywood, CA - www.tribal-institute.org/

THE NATIONAL TRIBAL JUDICIAL CENTER at THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE
Reno, NV – www.judges.org

NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND
Boulder, CO - www.narf.org/

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR TRIAL ADVOCACY
Louisville, CO - www.nita.org

NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS
Arlington, VA - www.ncsconline.org/

STATE

WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT
Madison, WI - www.courts.state.wi.us/

SOUTH DAKOTA UNIFIED JUDICIAL SYSTEM
Pierre, SD - www.sdjudicial.com/

CONFERENCE OF STATE COURT ADMINISTRATORS
Salt Lake City, UT - www.cosca.ncsc.dni.us/

ALASKA NATIVE JUSTICE CENTER
Anchorage, AK - www.ciri.com/about_ciri/anjc.htm

WISCONSIN TRIBAL JUDGES ASSOCIATION
Bowler, WI

WISCONSIN JUDICARE, INC.
Wausau, WI – www.judicare.org