Believe It: Indigenous Americans Shifted Rightward, Voted Trump

On November 5th, typically Democratic-voting Indigenous people joined those who rejected the liberal worldview of Washington, DC elites. They voted for Donald Trump in significant numbers even though his administration poses an existential threat to Tribal nations.

There were early signs of this rightward shift.

As an August New York Times story explained: “Despite President Biden naming the first Indigenous cabinet secretary, some Indigenous voters said they still felt voiceless in Washington, and ignored by a federal government that they say has inflicted centuries of harm.”

That Indigenous people would express even muted criticism about Deb Haaland, this country’s first Indigenous cabinet Secretary, proved foretelling.

By the end of October, “dozens” of Indigenous people “who spoke to the AP in the final weeks before the election expressed frustration with Democratic-leaning tribal governments…and politicians in Washington, who they say rarely use their seat at the table to push for them.”

As the dust now settles on the election, the New York Times reports “there were shifts to the right in counties with large populations of…Native American residents.” That is consistent with what is being reported from reliably blue greater Seattle-King County:

In King County, the place that moved the most toward Trump compared to 2020 is on the plateau just east of Auburn, in and around the Muckleshoot tribal lands. The core precinct where Muckleshoot tribal headquarters is located shifted nearly 15 points to Trump….

In a post-election briefing, analysts for AAPI Data, a group that monitors Asian American and Pacific Islander trends, said both Asian and Native American voting margins for Democrats have been dropping.

Likewise, Politico reports:

In Montana, the four counties that reported the sharpest shifts to the right had Native American majorities. In South Dakota, all nine counties with Native American majorities shifted rightward. The same trend held true in neighboring North Dakota, where Sioux County — which is 81 percent Native American — showed the biggest rightward shift of any of the state’s 53 counties, at 10 points.

Elsewhere — in states with large or small Native American populations — the story was much the same. New Mexico’s McKinley County, which is 81 percent Native American and home to members of several different tribes, shifted 14 points to the right. Minnesota’s Mahnomen County, which is 43 percent Native American, moved 7 points — the biggest shift of any county in the state.

As Politico explains, “public safety and economic concerns appear to have rated high among many of those [Trump] voters,” especially as “inflation imposed severe hardships on many Native American families.”

These assessments are corroborated by a poll of 865 Indigenous people conducted by Native News Online in collaboration with Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism and Qualtrics.

According to that survey: “Donald Trump received 51% of Native American votes in the presidential election, while Kamala Harris garnered 45% of the votes,” with Indigenous Trump voters citing “inflation (21%), immigration (16%) and jobs/economy (14%) as their primary concerns.”

Only time will tell if these election results signal a rise in Indigenous populism.

It is worrisome that so many Indigenous voters would support a presidential candidate whose party threatens economic, environmental, and cultural harm to Tribal nations. By voting for Trump, those voters may end up in a worse condition by way of their Tribal nations, which will almost certainly face slashed federal program dollars and aggressive mineral extraction from sacred ancestral homelands.

It is also worrisome that the Democratic-Indigenous political media apparatus remains in denial that Donald Trump won Indigenous America in 2024. If influential folks don’t get right, and course correct, it will be Tribal nations who suffer the existential consequences.

Gabe Galanda is an Indigenous rights attorney and the managing lawyer at Galanda Broadman. He has been named to Best Lawyers in America in the fields of Native American Law and Gaming Law from 2007 to 2024, and dubbed a Super Lawyer by his peers from 2013 to 2024.

Indigenous Populism Confronts Federal Indian Elitism

Last Tuesday, the American people roundly rejected federal political elitism. It appears typically Democratic-voting Indigenous people joined those who rejected the liberal worldview of Washington, DC elites.

There were early signs of the Indigenous populism reflected at the polls.

As an August New York Times story explained: “Despite President Biden naming the first Indigenous cabinet secretary, some Indigenous voters said they still felt voiceless in Washington, and ignored by a federal government that they say has inflicted centuries of harm.”

An NPR story, also in August, chronicled Indigenous people’s concerns about Interior Secretary Deb Haaland’s failure to block and tackle on behalf of missing and murdered Indigenous women. “A lot of people are hesitant to criticize her,” NPR explained, but many “say their confidence in her ability to champion Indigenous needs is slipping.”

By the end of October, “dozens” of Indigenous people “who spoke to the AP in the final weeks before the election expressed frustration with Democratic-leaning tribal governments…and politicians in Washington, who they say rarely use their seat at the table to push for them.”

As the dust now settles on the election, the New York Times reports “there were shifts to the right in counties with large populations of…Native American residents.” That is consistent with what is being reported from reliably blue greater Seattle:

In King County, the place that moved the most toward Trump compared to 2020 is on the plateau just east of Auburn, in and around the Muckleshoot tribal lands. The core precinct where Muckleshoot tribal headquarters is located shifted nearly 15 points to Trump….

In a post-election briefing, analysts for AAPI Data, a group that monitors Asian American and Pacific Islander trends, said both Asian and Native American voting margins for Democrats have been dropping.

The through-line of these mainstream election news stories is that ordinary Indigenous people’s needs and fears were not heard by the Biden Democrats and are generally not being heard by DC political elites.

That Indigenous people would express even muted criticism about this country’s first Indigenous cabinet Secretary suggests populism is rising in Indian country.

In my own observation, DC political elites—including so-called DC Indians—increasingly ignore the fundamental rights and basic needs of ordinary Indigenous people.

When’s the last time an everyday Indigenous person testified before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs about an existential individual concern? When’s the last time an Interior Secretary took a meeting with a Tribal human rights victim? 

Ordinary Indigenous people who don’t wield Indian gaming money, or who express Tribal human rights concerns, are denied access to federal law and policy makers.

They don’t get meetings with U.S. officials, no matter who’s in the White House. They aren’t allowed to testify before Congress, no matter which party is in the majority.  They don’t get audiences with DC political elites.

Why? Because there is simply no political or financial incentive to allow ordinary Indigenous people access to the federal political establishment.

There is, however, enormous incentive to allow Tribal gaming politicians and gaming-allied “Tribal sovereignty” advocates federal access. The $42 billion Indian gaming industry is highly incentivizing to folks serving in presidential administrations and on Capitol Hill.

Ordinary Indigenous people simply don’t have the cash needed to compete for federal political attention.

But what ordinary Indigenous people can compete with is their votes, especially in swing states amid an increasingly divided nation.  If DC elites don’t contend with rising Indigenous populism, it may cost them future control of the country—if not their careers.

Gabe Galanda is an Indigenous rights attorney and the managing lawyer at Galanda Broadman. He has been named to Best Lawyers in America in the fields of Native American Law and Gaming Law from 2007 to 2024, and dubbed a Super Lawyer by his peers from 2013 to 2024.

Anthony Broadman Elected to Oregon State Senate

On Tuesday, central Oregon voters elected Anthony Broadman to the Oregon State Senate by an overwhelming margin. 

Anthony is a Galanda Broadman founder and partner, Bend City Councilor, Warm Springs appellate court judge, and legal counsel to Tribal nations throughout the west.

He will continue with Galanda Broadman out of Bend while serving in the Oregon State Senate.

Congratulations, Senator Broadman!

Galanda Broadman Named "Best Firm" in Native American & Gaming Law for Thirteenth Year

Galanda Broadman, PLLC, has been named a “Best Law Firm” by U.S. News - Best Lawyers in the arena of Native American Law and Gaming Law, for the thirteenth year in a row. 

According to U.S. News - Best Lawyers, the firm's national ranking was determined through the firm's overall evaluation, which was derived from a combination of Galanda Broadman’s “clients' impressive feedback” and “the high regard that lawyers in other firms in the same practice area have for [the] firm.” 

Galanda Broadman is dedicated to advancing Tribal legal rights and business interests and defending Indigenous human rights.

The firm, with eight lawyers and offices in Seattle and Yakima, Washington and Bend, Oregon, represents Tribal governments, businesses, and citizens and Indigenous people in critical litigation, business and regulatory matters—especially in matters of Treaty rights, sovereignty, taxation, civil rights, and belonging.

Galanda Broadman Seeks a Tribal Law and Litigation Associate

Galanda Broadman, PLLC, an Indigenous rights firm with eight lawyers and offices in Seattle and Yakima, Washington, and Bend, Oregon, seeks to add an experienced Tribal law and federal court litigation associate.

(We are also hiring for a second, civil litigation associate to bring federal civil rights claims against state and local government defendants.)

The firm represents Tribal governments, businesses, and citizens in critical litigation, business and regulatory matters, especially in the areas of Treaty rights, Tribal sovereignty, land rights, cultural property protection, taxation, commerce, gaming, serious/catastrophic personal injury, wrongful death, and human/civil rights.

The firm seeks lawyers who are deeply committed to representing Tribal and Indigenous interests, who is state bar licensed, preferably in Washington State; and who have civil litigation or a judicial clerk experience. 

We prefer applicants with at least three years of experience but exceptions can be made for exceptional candidates.  Proven motion and civil rules practice, if not trial experience, and the ability to self-direct are critical. Impeccable writing and research skills; critical and audacious thinking; strong oral advocacy; tremendous work ethic; tenacity; and sound ethics are required. 

Salary DOE. 

Qualified applicants should submit a cover letter tailored to this announcement, as well as a résumé, writing sample, transcript, and list of at least three educational or professional references.  Submissions must be directed to Alice Hall, the firm’s Office Manager, at alice@galandabroadman.com. 

Applications directed elsewhere will not be considered.

Amber Penn-Roco Recognized by Washington Tribes

Galanda Broadman partner and Chehalis Tribal citizen Amber Penn-Roco is profiled in the September 2024 edition of “Washington Tribes,” a newsletter published by the Washington Indian Gaming Association. Through Q&A, Amber shares her inspiring journey to the legal profession, where she now represents Tribes and Indigenous communities. Her interview is also shown in the below YouTube video.

A couple excerpts:

Q: Please tell us about your work.
 
A: I am a partner at Galanda Broadman, an Indigenous rights law firm. I specialize in environmental protection and the preservation of cultural and natural resources. Being an attorney is a challenging career, and I find that the best way to navigate it is by finding work you are passionate about. My entire life, I knew I wanted to work on behalf of the Indigenous people, in order to give back to the communities that have given me so much. I think that the Tribes and Indigenous communities that I represent appreciate having an advocate who looks like them, who understands their communities, who understands the intricacies of what it is like to live on a reservation, to be a part of a Tribe, and to constantly fight for recognition as a government.

Q: What does your family think of where your education has taken you?
 
A: They are so proud. My mom was my biggest cheerleader. She loved that I went to law school. One of my favorite photos of us ever taken is a picture from my law school graduation. You can just feel how proud she is and how she feels like she made it too. And my daughters. They see me, a strong, female, person of color, an attorney owning my own law firm, and they have someone to look up to. I think they are very proud of me.

Amber Penn-Roco is a partner at Galanda Broadman. Her practice focuses on tribal sovereignty issues, including environmental issues, economic development, and complex Indian Country litigation. Her experience also includes work on transactional matters, including entity formation, environmental compliance and permitting. Amber is an enrolled member of the Chehalis Tribe.

Axios Features Gabe Galanda on Indigenous Peoples Day and Tribal Disenrollment

Axios an article about Indigenous Peoples Day, Axios highlights how many Native advocates, including Gabe Galanda, “see it as a symbolic gesture that still falls short of the progress needed.” Gabe explained how the exclusion of Tribal citizens from America’s most fundamental promises of freedom, results in endemic rates of Indigenous disenrollment, displacement, violence, and trafficking.

What they're saying: Gabriel Galanda, a member of the Round Valley Indian Tribes and an Indigenous rights attorney in Seattle, says Indigenous Peoples Day is a symbolic gesture.

• "It gives Americans a brief opportunity to reflect on our existence, but it doesn't address the legal and civil rights issues plaguing our communities."

• Galanda criticized the observance of Indigenous Peoples Day, along with related proclamations and land acknowledgments, recognizing Indigenous peoples as the original inhabitants of American land but failing to address the deeper systemic issues Native people face.

His concern centers on the 100th anniversary of the Indian Citizenship Act, which granted Native Americans citizenship through federal statute. It's not a constitutional guarantee — yet many of the same challenges persist today.

• Galanda said he's "fought against disenrollment and housing evictions within Indigenous communities" for 12 years.

• "The process of disenrollment—essentially de-citizenship—has stripped over 10,000 Native people of their tribal status, cutting them off from their homelands and safety nets," he said.

• "Without recourse or protections, many of those evicted end up displaced and vulnerable to violence or trafficking."

State of play: Galanda said neither major political party has fully addressed the core issues. While acknowledging Indigenous communities' structural challenges, he remains driven by the belief that change is possible — though difficult.

• Beyond his 2021 proclamation, Biden has taken further steps to support Native communities through policies focused on tribal sovereignty, federal funding reform and infrastructure investment.

• Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign spokesperson Jaidan Idarraga told Axios on Saturday Harris has "the largest ever national Tribal organizing program, with Tribal organizers in each of our key states who are communicating the stakes of this election directly with Tribal communities."

• The Trump campaign did not specify how it would serve Native Americans.

The bottom line: Galanda says that until Indigenous people are given civil rights protections like other Americans, conversations, proclamations and holiday observances will remain insufficient.

• "My hope, despite my cynicism, is that these dynamics can turn the other way... but every day I see more citizens [with] less hope given the forces at play."

Gabe Galanda is an Indigenous rights attorney and the managing lawyer at Galanda Broadman. He has been named to Best Lawyers in America in the fields of Native American Law and Gaming Law from 2007 to 2024, and dubbed a Super Lawyer by his peers from 2013 to 2024.

United Nations Further Intervenes at Nooksack, Interior Secretary Faces Human Rights Criticism

The United Nations has once again intervened in the Nooksack human rights calamity, in unprecedented fashion.

In each of the last three years, United Nations human rights officials have decried human rights violations against over 60 Indigenous persons at Nooksack.

Last Friday, the UN criticized the United States and Nooksack governments for failing to substantively respond to its two prior interventions regarding the violated property rights of seven families, “who self-identify as Indigenous Nooksack, but had been disenrolled from Nooksack tribal membership.” The UN is also expressing concern about “fair trial violations” at Nooksack.

Each UN intervention, one after the next, is unprecedented, both in Geneva and the United States. That is because a great many human rights advocates are highly deferential to Tribal sovereignty and otherwise afraid to criticize Tribal nations for human rights abuse.

The UN’s latest intervention comes as U.S. Interior Department Secretary Deb Haaland faces rising criticism for ignoring Indigenous human rights abuses on Tribal lands.

Secretary Haaland’s Human Rights Record Criticized

Over the last few months, Secretary Haaland’s Indigenous human rights record has been increasingly questioned or criticized.

NPR recently reported how she has failed to implement a law she spearheaded while in Congress to hold the federal government accountable for the overwhelming number of missing or murdered Indigenous people in the U.S. each year, explaining:

Indigenous people have held Deb Haaland in high regard since she became the first-ever Indigenous cabinet secretary, so a lot of people are hesitant to criticize her. But a number of commissioners say their confidence in her ability to champion Indigenous needs is slipping.

Similarly, The New York Times reported:

Despite President Biden naming the first Indigenous cabinet secretary, some Indigenous voters said they still felt voiceless in Washington, and ignored by a federal government that they say has inflicted centuries of harm.

In its latest intervention, the UN spotlighted the failure by Secretary Haaland and the Biden administration, as well as Washington state and Nooksack authorities, to protect the seven families’ federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) home ownership rights.

Secretary Haaland has dodged the politically fraught human rights calamity at Nooksack—including each of the UN’s interventions since 2022—as she aspires to run for the New Mexico governorship. She is expected to be the first cabinet Secretary to leave the administration after the November presidential election.

In a June 2024 email, Secretary Haaland’s office deflected a plea from the seven Nooksack families towards the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (calling it a HUD “issue”) and to the State Department, despite both agencies looking to Interior as the “led agency” regarding the human rights violations at Nooksack as well as the UN’s historic interventions.

The UN’s Tribal Interventions “Never Before Seen”

Prior to 2022, at Nooksack, the UN had never before waded into what federal and tribal officials in the United States blithely call “an internal matter.” As the Seattle Times explained in 2023:

Eric Eberhard, a University of Washington School of Law professor and an expert on Native legal issues, has never before seen U.N. experts wade into “what might be viewed as an internal tribal matter,” as opposed to a disagreement between a tribe and the U.S. Not once, let alone twice, he said.

A few passages from the UN’s 2023 communication to the State Department are incisive, and historic.

The UN explained “that all level of state authorities, national, regional, local, Parish, Tribe, and any other, have to abide by national and internationally recognized human rights law and standards and that the national Government has the duty to oversee that this takes place.”

The UN also “emphasize[d] that States and indigenous authorities share the responsibility for ensuring that processes and decisions by indigenous authorities accord with international human rights, particularly in the context of possible conflicts between the rights and interests of individual indigenous members and the collective rights and interest of an indigenous people or community.” 

In what may prove over time to be a watershed moment in domestic Indigenous human rights protection vis-a-vis Tribal nations, the UN proclaimed: “indigenous institutions and justice systems have an obligation to comply with international human rights standards.”

Also prior to 2022, the UN had never before intervened with a Tribal nation that had violated internationally recognized human rights laws.

In its 2023 communication to the Nooksack Tribe, the UN “emphasize[d] that the UNDRIP protects both individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples and that it needs to be interpreted as complementing - and not acting contrary - to the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality and non-discrimination, good governance and good faith.”

The UN’s interventions at Nooksack are believed to represent Geneva’s first application of the UNDRIP’s individual rights provisions to Tribal nations, which generally stand above reproach in civil and human rights communities.

In 2021, Secretary Haaland testified before the UN, proclaiming: “I strongly affirm the United States’ support for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and our commitment to advancing Indigenous Peoples’ rights at home and abroad.” Her domestic human rights record tells a different story.

Gabe Galanda is an Indigenous rights attorney and the managing lawyer at Galanda Broadman. He has been named to Best Lawyers in America in the fields of Native American Law and Gaming Law from 2007 to 2024, and dubbed a Super Lawyer by his peers from 2013 to 2024. Below are all of the communications between the UN, State Department, and Nooksack Tribe since 2022.

###

2-1-22 UN OHRC Communication to US State Department

2-24-22 US State Department Communication to UN OHRC

3-31-23 UN OHCR Communication to Nooksack Tribe

3-31-23-UN OHRC Communication to US State Department

6-1-23 US State Department Communication to UN OHRC

6-6-23 Nooksack Tribe Communication to UN OHRC

9-27-24 UN OHCR Impact of the Work of Special Procedures - Policy Reform - Nooksack

Nooksack Judge's Refusal to Recuse from Eviction Ruling Raises “Judicial Misconduct” Concerns

Nooksack Judge Pro Tem Charles Hostnik presides over a Nooksack tribal court eviction hearing in 2023; Norma Aldredge watches on with Michelle Roberts

According to Indian Country Today, the same Nooksack trial court judge who ordered the eviction of several Nooksack families refused to recuse himself from an a closely related appellate eviction ruling that came down last week. As a result, Nooksack elders and families are now threatened with physical eviction by Tribal police from homes they have rented to own for nearly twenty years.

“Judicial Misconduct” at Nooksack

As reported, Tacoma lawyer Charles Hostnik “sat on an appeal that involves the four cases he decided as pro tem tribal court judge” in 2023. Hostnik “did not recuse himself and was not removed from the panel” that affirmed eviction decisions in three “connected” cases on Wednesday. While writing the September 18, 2024 appellate ruling, Hostnik “included pages of identical text to his February 2023 ruling.”

Verbatim excerpts of Hostnik's February 2023 summary judgment decisions (top) and September 2024 appellate ruling (bottom)

Hostnik, Indian Country Today reported, “used his summary judgment decisions against certain members of the family to decide and write the appellate opinion against the others.”

On August 29, 2024, Michelle Roberts, lay advocate for herself and the Nooksack families, filed a motion for Hostnik’s recusal. Nooksack Appeals Court Chief Judge Rajeev Majumdar denied her request because it “came at a late hour.” Majumdar did not address Roberts’s arguments that under Nooksack law, Hostnik’s consideration of essentially “his own decisions” at the Nooksack trial court level, amounted to a conflict of interest on appeal according to Nooksack law.

Last Wednesday night, Roberts, who along with her dad and uncle are now facing eviction from their federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit homes, shared her stunned dismay with Indian Country Today reporter and Northwest Bureau Chief Luna Reyna:

I will never forget being in front of the judge at Nooksack and then realizing that the same judge was on the appellate court of judges asking me questions. Thinking, is this judge really part of our appeals being able to make a decision on his own decision against his own decision? I don’t even know how to write that.

The next day, Gabriel Galanda filed a brief before the Nooksack appeals court that appended highlighted copies of Hostnik’s appellate ruling and prior summary judgment rulings, showing the pages of language he copied. He and other Galanda Broadman lawyers have their own due process appeal pending before the Nooksack appeals court. Galanda filed the brief in that proceeding.

Galanda Broadman lawyers have been representing the seven Nooksack families since 2013, but Galanda and other firm lawyers remain “blocked from practicing law at Nooksack.” Last year, as Nooksack pro tem judge, Hostnik “blocked Galanda from even helping his clients write their court papers since he was no longer able to represent them in court.” Although under Washington sate ethics laws, “lawyers may ghostwrite for pro se parties in state court civil litigation,” Hostnik foreclosed that legal assistance to the seven families.

Meanwhile, the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) has declined to exercise its established jurisdiction over lawyer misconduct to discipline any of the several state-licensed lawyers who caused the strategic disbarment of eight Galanda Broadman lawyers in 2016.

In 2022, Majumdar served as WSBA President while the organization was considering disciplinary grievances against Ray Dodge, the chief architect of Galanda Broadman’s disbarment. When Majumdar became a Nooksack pro tem judge, that year, his dual roles raised appearance of fairness concerns within the WSBA’s Board of Governors, causing the board to consider a new ethical rule to disallow judges from serving elected state bar leadership positions.

To avoid appearance of fairness issues within either state courts or bar associations, at least nineteen state bar associations do not allow judges or pro tem judges from serving in elected bar leadership positions. In Utah, for example, judges are not “permitted to accept governmental appointments that could interfere with the effectiveness and independence of the judiciary.” A divided WSBA Board of Governors, however, declined to adopt the proposed ethical rule. Majumdar later became the Nooksack appeals court’s Chief Judge.

Hostnik and Majumdar are not believed to be considering the Galanda Broadman lawyers’ pending due process appeal, but both collaborated to issue last week’s appellate ruling against the Nooksack families. In that ruling, which Majumdar signed, Hostnik also invited Nooksack housing authorities to “collaborate with the Nooksack Police Department as necessary . . . on evictions."

United Nation human rights experts have decried the Tribal political deployment of armed Nooksack cops to the families’ homes since 2021.

Michelle Roberts appears before Nooksack Appeals Court Chief Judge Rajeev Majumdar on August 20, 2024

“So Incredibly Beyond the Pale”

The appellate brief Galanda filed on Thursday reads:

Yesterday, the Appeals Panel in Cause 2024-CI-APL-004 affirmed Nooksack trial court summary judgment decisions against three Pro se Appellants. Appendix A. Appellate Judge Charles Hostnik wrote the Appellate Opinion and Chief Judge Rajeev Majumdar issued the decision.  Compare Appendix A at 12-16, with Appendices B, C at 3-5, 11-13. Astonishingly, Judge Hostnik’s Appellate Opinion includes five pages of verbatim language lifted from summary judgment decisions that Judge Hostnik wrote against Pro se Appellants in 2024-CI-APL-002 as Tribal Court Pro Tem Judge in 2023. Id. (highlighted verbatim text).

This is precisely what Michelle Roberts warned would happen when she sought Judge Hostnik’s recusal from Cause 2024-CI-APL-004 on August 29, 2024. She wrote:

“During the hearing on Tuesday, Nooksack appellate judge Charles Hostnik was one of the three appellate judges. He was also the pro tem tribal court judge on Olive Oshiro, Norma Aldredge, Alex Mills, and Saturnino Javier’s eviction cases. All seven of us are more or less in the same legal position when it comes to our LIHTC homes.  All of the LIHTC property rights issues are the same.  I prepared all seven of our appeal notices and they are the same or similar. . . . Because all seven cases are connected, Judge Hostnik is basically sitting on an appeal that involves the four cases he decided as pro tem tribal court judge.  It would be unfair for him to sit on my, my dad Michael Rabang, and my uncle Francisco Rabang’s appeals. Judge Hostnik issued “summary judgment” in the Oshiro, Aldredge, Mills, and Javier cases, and is now considering whether “summary judgment” was correct in our related appeals. He would naturally want to find in favor of “summary judgment.”  I do not know how he can be impartial to his own decisions. This is a Conflict of Interest.”

Ms. Roberts’s words proved prescient.  Judge Hostnik “naturally [found] in favor of “summary judgment,” going so far as to graft pages of language in his summary judgment orders into the Appellate Opinion issued against Michelle and her father and uncle. Compare Appendix A at 12-16, with Appendices B, C at 3-5, 11-13 (highlighted verbatim text).

Judge Hostnik should have recused himself from serving on the the Appeals Panel in Cause 2024-CI-APL-004, or Chief Judge Majumdar should have granted Ms. Roberts’s recusal motion and disqualified Judge Hostnik from serving on that panel.

Instead, on September 5, 2024, Chief Judge Majumdar denied Ms. Roberts’s recusal motion because it “came at a late hour,” after he appointed Judge Hostnik to the Appeals Panel in Cause 2024-CI-APL-004 on April 17, 2024.  As she told Chief Judge Majumdar in her motion, it was not until August 27, 2024 when Ms. Roberts realized that the same judge who “issued ‘summary judgment’ in the Oshiro, Aldredge, Mills, and Javier cases, and is now considering whether ‘summary judgment’ was correct in our related appeals [Roberts, M. Rabang, and F. Rabang].” This speaks to precisely why Pro se Appellants need—and have always needed—legal counsel in these property and housing rights appeals—as is their right at Nooksack.

There is no other court in the country—Tribal, state, or federal—where a judge who decided four “connected cases” at the trial court level, would sit on an appeal of three other “connected cases . . . where [a]ll of the LIHTC property rights issues are the same.”  Not one.  Rules and norms of judicial conduct would not allow such impropriety.  And it is not only Pro se Appellants who suffer from this judicial impropriety as they fear evictions and property takings—it is Tribal nations and judiciaries writ large. Declaration of Gabriel S. Galanda (June 3, 2024), Ex. E (Ex. 8 thereto) (Washington State Bar Association (April 10, 2018) at 3: The Nooksack ‘’justice system’ is probably not worthy of that description”); id. (Ex. 4 thereto) at 8-9 (Amici Curiae Law Professors (Sept. 19, 2016): “[T]he ripple effect of [the] lawlessness will reach far beyond the boundaries of Nooksack. . . . The suspicions and denigrations of tribal courts as second-class forums will gain credence among those that are hostile to tribal sovereignty.”). 

“This judicial misconduct would not happen in any other court system in the country,” Galanda reiterated to Indian Country Today. “It is all so incredibly beyond the pale.”

Galanda Broadman Federal Civil Rights Litigation Associate Position Announcement

Galanda Broadman, PLLC, an Indigenous rights firm with eight lawyers and offices in Seattle and Yakima, Washington, and Bend, Oregon, seeks to add an experienced civil litigation associate to bring federal civil rights claims against state and local government defendants.

(We are also hiring for a second, Tribal law and federal court litigation associate.)

Galanda Broadman brings federal court, Section 1983 actions for serious/catastrophic personal injury or wrongful death, primarily involving Indigenous plaintiffs.  The firm seeks a lawyer who is deeply committed to representing Indigenous interests, who is state bar licensed in Washington state, and who has civil litigation or a judicial clerk experience.  The lawyer would primarily help bring federal Section 1983 civil rights lawsuits in Washington federal district courts. 

We prefer applicants with at least three years of experience but exceptions can be made for exceptional candidates.  Proven motion and civil rules practice, if not trial experience, and the ability to self-direct are critical. Impeccable writing and research skills; critical and audacious thinking; strong oral advocacy; tremendous work ethic; tenacity; and sound ethics are required. 

Salary DOE. 

Qualified applicants should submit a cover letter tailored to this announcement, as well as a résumé, writing sample, transcript, and list of at least three educational or professional references.  Submissions must be directed to Alice Hall, the firm’s Office Manager, at alice@galandabroadman.com. 

Applications directed elsewhere will not be considered.