Indian Law

Ryan Dreveskracht's Paper on the VAWA Reauthorization and Oliphant Fix Accepted for Law Review Publication

Ryan Dreveskracht's paper, “House Republicans Add Insult to Native Womens’ Injury,” has been accepted for publication in the University of Miami Race and Social Justice Law Review. Turtle Talk has published his manuscript.

Ryan Dreveskracht is an Associate at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian majority-owned law firm. His practice focuses on representing businesses and tribal governments in public affairs, energy, gaming, taxation, and general economic development. He can be reached at 206.909.3842 or ryan@galandabroadman.com.

Are Hopes for the HEARTH Act Too High?

With much tribal and media fanfare, on Monday the President signed into law the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership (HEARTH) Act, Pub. L. No. 112-151 (2012).  It was signed less than two weeks after the Senate passed the Act by unanimous consent.  According to the House Report on the bill:

Private investment within Indian reservations . . . is about as scarce as it is in any nation where ownership of property is highly restricted by national governments. Investors cannot afford to wait the months or years it may take for BIA approval of a simple lease executed with a tribe. . . . Fortunately, there are exceptions. In reservations where tribes have wisely contracted with the BIA to manage their own lands, productivity and health of the property dramatically improve.

As it stands, under 25 U.S.C. § 415 each and every lease of a tribe’s lands must still undergo federal review and approval by the Secretary of the Interior under a sprawling, burdensome set of regulations.  Approval is also subject to the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq., along with the usual delays and court controversies that protract the process.  It is not unheard of for several years to pass before Indian land can be leased, if at all.  Thus, a tribe who wants to govern its trust lands under free market principles cannot, in practice, do so.

Needless to say, the HEARTH Act has great expectations. The Act seeks to change the current scheme of Indian land leasing by – commonsensically – allowing tribes to lease their own land. (The “Homeownership” moniker to the Act is actually misleading; the HEARTH Act potentially applies to all non-mineral tribal land leases, not just those pertaining to Indian homesteads). The Act will give tribal governments the discretion to lease restricted lands for business, agricultural, public, religious, educational, recreational, or residential purposes without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. Tribes are able to do so with a primary term of 25 years, and up to two renewal terms of 25 years each (or a primary term of up 75 years if the lease is for residential, recreational, religious or educational purposes).

The Act has been lauded as something that will “open the door to badly needed housing development on reservations, as well as wind and solar energy projects that tribes have been eager to launch.”  Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) says that it will once and for all “remove bureaucratic red tape and clear the way for Indian tribes to pursue homeownership and economic development opportunities”; Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says the Act “will have a real impact for individuals and families who want to own a home or build a business – generating investment, new jobs and revenues”; National Congress of American Indians President Jefferson Keel echoes the applaud, stating that the Act “will streamline business development and housing development and create jobs on reservations across the country.”

Although a good first step – a very good first step, with much potential – I am not as sold that the HEARTH Act will have such immediate effects, if it will have any effect at all.  First, before any tribal government can approve a lease, the Secretary must approve the tribal regulations under which those leases are executed (and mining leases will still require the Secretary's approval).  Second, before the Secretary can approve those tribal regulations, the tribe must have implemented an environmental review process – a “tribal,” or “mini” NEPA –that identifies and evaluates any significant effects a proposed lease may have on the environment and allows public comment on those effects.

One need only look to the energy arena to determine the future of the HEARTH Act. In 2005, Congress enacted 25 U.S.C. § 3504, which included provisions for implementation of a Tribal Energy Resource Agreement (“TERA”).  Essentially, the law operates much like the HEARTH Act.  It (1) allows tribes to enter into a master agreement (the TERA) with the Secretary of the Interior, which then (2) grants the tribe the ability to enter into leases and to grant rights of way across tribal lands without Secretarial approval.

To date, however, not one tribe has entered into a TERA.  For many tribes, the cost simply outweighs the benefits – TERAs allow tribes the leeway to skip Secretarial approval, “but only on terms dictated by the federal government rather than on the tribes’ own terms.”  Like the HEARTH Act, the TERA requires that tribes create a NEPA-like environmental review process and comply “with all applicable environmental laws.”  And tribes simply do not have the resources necessary to fulfill the host of NEPA requirements, which impose an extremely heavy burden on tribal governments to demonstrate that they have the requisite expertise, experience, laws, and administrative structures in place to assume the responsibility of a TERA.  According to Indian law scholar Judith V. Royster, “[f]ew tribes at present have the in-house geologists, engineers, hydrologists, and other experts, or the financial wherewithal to hire or train them,” in order to provide the tribe with the capacity necessary to obtain Secretarial approval under the TERA regulations.

Of course, the HEARTH Act authorizes the Secretary to provide a tribe, upon the tribe’s request, technical assistance in developing a regulatory environmental review process. But this takes time and money.  And the Secretary, given all of the BIA’s other demands, is perennially short on time when it comes to launching new initiatives such as this one. Further, Congress has shown time and time again that it is willing to pass these laws, but not to fund them; Congress should not be expected to authorize one red cent to support the HEARTH Act’s implementation.

Time will tell whether the HEARTH Act proves to be any success at all.  Until then, the “Expedite” part of the HEARTH Act’s title seems a bit too optimistic.

Ryan Dreveskracht is an Associate at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian majority-owned law firm. His practice focuses on representing businesses and tribal governments in public affairs, energy, gaming, taxation, and general economic development. He can be reached at 206.909.3842 or ryan@galandabroadman.com.

Rapid City Journal Announces Galanda Broadman's Representation of Vern Traversie

Rapid City Journal reports that:

A South Dakota judge is allowing three lawyers from Washington to help represent a Native American man who has filed a civil lawsuit claiming the letters KKK were carved into his stomach at a hospital.

Court documents show that Judge Jeffrey Viken is allowing Gabriel Galanda, Anthony Broadman and Ryan Dreveskracht, all of Seattle, to take part in proceedings on behalf of Vern Traversie. The three men are admitted to practice in Washington but are not members of the South Dakota Bar.

Traversie is a 69-year-old Lakota man who lives on the Cheyenne River reservation. Though he is blind, Traversie says others have told him the scars left form the letters. He is suing the hospital where the surgery took place, its board of directors and others.

Turtle Talk has published the Complaint filed by Iron Eyes Law Offices and Galanda Broadman.

Judicial Warning to Tribes to Avoid State Incorporation

Before any tribal government forms an enterprise under state law or seeks to do business beyond Indian Country, it should consider this week's indictment of tribal sovereign immunity by a Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge in Somerlott v. Cherokee Nation Distributors.

CND, LLC wants sovereign immunity. But CND, LLC is in the business of manipulating spines for profit. It serves mostly non-Indians and operates off reservation. It was formed under Oklahoma’s limited liability statutes. . . .

[S]overeign immunity has never extended to a for-profit business owned by one sovereign but formed under the laws of a second sovereign when the laws of the incorporating second sovereign expressly allow the business to be sued. And it doesn’t matter whether the sovereign owning the business is the federal government, a foreign sovereign, state — or tribe. . . .

Neither can we doubt that the Nation lacked for choices when it came to organizing CND — or that good reasons exist for the choice it made. The Nation could have chosen to operate the chiropractic clinic itself and enjoy immunity for its operations. . . .

The moral of this story: Tribes should avoid state incorporation of their enterprises whenever possible. Instead, tribes should charter their businesses under tribal law, or perhaps Section 17 of the IRA (yet heeding caution about sue-and-be-sued-clause immunity waiver as to the latter). I recognize that certain tribal economic development efforts require an entity formed under state law but that should be the exception to the rule.

Gabriel "Gabe" Galanda is a partner at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian owned law firm.  He is an enrolled member of the Round Valley Indian Tribes of Covelo, California.  Gabe assists tribal governments and businesses in all matters of tribal economic development and diversification, including entity formation and related tax strategy. Gabe can be reached at 206.691.3631 or gabe@galandabroadman.com.

Gabe Galanda to Address UN-Geneva Re: American Indian Treaties and Consultation

Gabe Galanda will visit Geneva, Switzerland on July 16 and 17, 2012, to address the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, during a forum titled, “Strengthening Partnership Between Indigenous Peoples and States: Treaties, Agreements and Other Constructive Arrangements." Gabe, an enrolled member of the Round Valley Indian Tribes of California, will speak at the UN Palais des Nations on July 17 during a session titled, “Highlights of country-level experiences concerning treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.”

He will speak along with indigenous leaders from South Africa, Costa Rica, Bangladesh, New Caledonia, Canada, Mexico, Columbia and Kenya, regarding the processes, principles and other essential elements of the negotiation and elaboration of new agreements or other constructive arrangements as well as the effective recognition of historical treaties.

“The invitation to join the leaders of indigenous nations and nation-states and address the U.N. human rights tribunal in Geneva is one of the highest honors I have ever received,” said Galanda. “I look forward to contributing to international discourse concerning the rights of indigenous peoples vis-à-vis their sister sovereigns, and to helping advance the American Indian consultation right towards one of informed consent.”

Gabe’s remarks and paper are titled, “American Indian Treaties: The Consultation Mandate." In particular, he will address domestic federal recognition and breach of Indian treaties, and modern practices of federal-tribal government-to-government consultation, particularly in relation to the U.N. Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP) that President Obama endorsed on December 16, 2010. Indian treaties are to be recognized as the Supreme Law of the Land according to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.

Gabe has been critical of the United States government for its breach of the U.N. DRIP (“in action, the departments, agencies, and officials within the Obama Administration do not actually live up to the words contained in the Declaration. To the contrary, federal actions too frequently contradict the promises made by the United States to American Indian indigenous people in the Declaration”); and its violation of fundamental consultation tenets between sovereigns (“other federal agencies completely missed the memo on tribal consultation – literally President Obama’s Tribal Consultation Memorandum – and, in specific instances, have failed to meaningfully consult with tribal governments concerning federal activity”). He maintains that a “treaty consultation obligation arises, in part at least, from the implicit duty to consult that is intrinsic in any bilateral agreement between nations.”

Gabe is a Partner with Galanda Broadman, PLLC, an American Indian-owned law firm in Seattle dedicated to advancing tribal legal rights and Indian business interests. His practice focuses on complex, multi-party litigation and crisis management, representing tribal governments and businesses and Indian citizens. Gabe has prosecuted various actions against the United States and for breach of Indian treaties and federal Indian consultation laws.

He has been selected to The Best Lawyers in America® from 2007 to 2012, and was named as one of the best lawyers in Washington State by Puget Sound Business Journal in 2011. Gabe was named to the Puget Sound Business Journal’s “40 Under 40” list, as well as to the National Center for American Indian Enterprise Development’s “Native American 40 Under 40” list in recognition of his status as an emerging leader in the legal industry, in 2009. Washington Law & Politics/Super Lawyers magazine named Gabe a “Rising Star” for ten of the last twelve years, most recently this year, and Washington Law & Politics named him one of Washington’s four Leading Edge Litigators in 2003. He was awarded the Washington State Bar Association Young Lawyers Division’s Outstanding Young Lawyer Award, and the Northwest Indian Bar Association’s Native Justice Award, in 2004.

Gabe was born and raised in Port Angeles, Washington. At Peninsula College, he received his A.A. from Peninsula College in 1995, and served as Associate Student Body President there in 1994-95. Gabe received his B.A. in English Literature from Western Washington University in 1997, and his J.D. from the James E. Rogers College of Law at the University of Arizona in Tucson, in 2000. At Arizona, he served as President of the Native American Law Students Association in 1998-99 and Note Editor for the Journal of International and Comparative Law in 1999-2000.

Trending: Gross and Willful Tribal Vendor Requests for Indemnity

For years, lenders have insisted that tribes indemnify them in loan documents for the bank's own negligence and misconduct concerning the deal. Tribes have too frequently accepted the bank-demanded indemnity language, simply in order to get the cash they need to run tribal governments and businesses. More specifically, some commercial lenders, and an increasing number of vendors and service providers to tribes, are insisting that tribes indemnify them from the banks/vendor/providers' own negligence, carving out from the indemnity clauses only those non-Indian businesses' "gross negligence" and "willful misconduct." And the the banks/vendor/providers treat the issue as non-negotiable; as "take it or leave it"/"our way or the highway."

Tribes should simply not be indemnifying non-Indian businesses from basic negligence. Period. The banks/vendor/providers' simple negligence should be carved out of any indemnity language that the tribe agrees to in favor of those non-Indian businesses.

The banks/vendor/providers' position, i.e., assume liability for our silly behavior or we won't loan you cash or provide you services, is preposterous -- in fact gross (disgusting) and willfully disrespectful to tribal governments and enterprises. Hopefully tribes who see over-reaching indemnity language in proposed loan documents and other commercial agreements, will reject any such language out of hand. If enough tribes do, that language will eventually disappear from commercial agreements in Indian Country.

Gabriel "Gabe" Galanda is a partner at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian owned law firm.  He is an enrolled member of the Round Valley Indian Tribes of Covelo, California.  Gabe helps with all varieties of tribal economic development and diversification initiatives. Gabe can be reached at 206.691.3631 or gabe@galandabroadman.com.

Tribal Immunity Held Inapplicable to Private Insurers -- Ya Think?

The Oklahoma Supreme Court recently ruled in Waltrip v. Osage Million Dollar Elm Casino that a tribal enterprise's private workers' compensation insurer did not enjoy tribal sovereign immunity and was estopped to deny coverage under a policy for which the carrier accepted premiums computed in part on a tribal employee's earnings. The tribe's insurance company had the audacity to assert sovereign immunity on its own behalf? Really? Although, I'm not sure why I'm surprised that an insurance company (or the low-rate, high-volume, non-tribal defense lawyer the carrier likely unilaterally hired to defend its tribal insured) would stoop so low.

Waltrip states what was otherwise conventional Indian legal thinking, that a private insurer cannot shield themselves from defending or paying on tort claims brought against its tribal insureds as a matter of the insured's sovereign immunity. Previous to Waltrip, the Arizona Supreme Court came the closest to making that point clear, in Smith Plumbing Co., Inc., v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.: “Because the Tribe has the power either to insist upon or waive its sovereign immunity, that immunity is considered a personal defense not available to the Tribe’s surety.”

Thankfully the common law now clearly establishes that an insurer cannot duck and run from from a personal injury claim by asserting the sovereign rights of the insured, for the carrier's own economic gain.

Gabriel "Gabe" Galanda is a partner at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian owned law firm.  He is an enrolled member of the Round Valley Indian Tribes of Covelo, California.  Gabe helps tribal governments and businesses devise insurance solutions, and defends tribal insureds from serious and catastrophic tort claims. Gabe can be reached at 206.691.3631 or gabe@galandabroadman.com.

Pacific Northwest Indian Law Attorney Gabe Galanda Named "Rising Star"

Gabe Galanda was named a Rising Star by Super Lawyers magazine for the year 2012. It is the tenth time in his 12-year career he has been bestowed with the honor. Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.

Gabriel "Gabe" Galanda is a partner at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian owned law firm.  He is an enrolled member of the Round Valley Indian Tribes of Covelo, California.  Gabe represents tribal governments and businesses and Indians citizens in all matters of controversy and transaction. He can be reached at 206.691.3631 or gabe@galandabroadman.com.

Anthony Broadman Publishes "Administrative Law in Washington State Indian Country" Chapter

Anthony Broadman, the current Chair of the Washington State Bar Association Administrative Law Section, recently published a chapter in the Section's Washington Administrative Practice Manual -- the authoritative text on administrative law in Washington State and now, in Indian Country. As the new edition of the manual states:

Chapter 18, Administrative Law in Washington State Indian Country. This release contains a completely new chapter which discusses the administrative laws and procedures that come into play when confronted with any issue involving a Native American person or tribal government. The topics covered include: - tribal administrative bodies; - recourse to tribal courts; - exhaustion of tribal administrative remedies; - the Indian Civil Rights Act; - practice before the Interior Board of Indian Appeals; - the Washington State Gambling Commission; - liquor sales regulation; and - the Public Records Act.

Anthony Broadman is a partner at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian majority-owned law firm.  His practice focuses on company-critical business litigation and representing tribal governments, especially in federal, state and local tax controversy. He can be reached at 206.691.3631 or anthony@galandabroadman.com, or via galandabroadman.com.

Tribal Regulation Immunizes Certain Tobacco Sales from Federal-State Interference

Cigarettes sold by a tribally licensed retailer and pursuant to a state-tribe cigarette agreement are not contraband for purposes of the federal Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (CCTA) – even if they are contraband under state law. United States v. Wilbur, 10-30185, 2012 WL 1139078 (9th Cir. Apr. 6, 2012). The Ninth Circuit ruled last week in Wilbur that even if cigarettes are transported in violation of state law, the CCTA only makes cigarettes “contraband” in this context if they “bear no evidence of the payment of applicable State or local cigarette taxes in the State or locality where such cigarettes are found.” 18 U.S.C. § 2341(2). The cigarettes at issue during one period of the Wilbur case were unstamped. But the defendants qualified as an Indian retailer under Washington state law, came partially within the constraints of a tribal tobacco tax compact, and therefore were not subject to state taxes – even though they were allegedly illegal under state cigarette transportation laws and were out of compliance with some tribal regulations.

At its core, for the period in which convictions were overturned, the decision implicitly recognized the legitimacy of tribal tobacco regulation. This could, by analogy or otherwise, undercut the interpretation of the PACT Act by federal agencies that suggests tribal tobacco entities must be licensed by the state to be considered “lawfully operating” under that federal law.

The Wilbur defendants’ convictions were upheld for other periods of the alleged conspiracy. And of more concern is the appearance of state officers acting in federal clothing. As the opinion observed, “a Lieutenant with the Washington State Liquor Control Board who was deputized as a Special Deputy U.S. Marshall, led the search” of the defendants’ retail facility. Although tribal law enforcement also participated in the raids, it is nonetheless noteworthy that reliance by federal statute on state law predicates is problematic in the face of “the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them.” Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 220 (1959).

The apparent ability for state officers to don federal clothing and enforce the state-federal hybrid criminal frameworks on reservations is an even more profound threat to that right. As explicitly contemplated by the Tribal Law and Order Act, if federally deputized non-federal officers are enforcing laws on the Reservation, it should be federally deputized tribal officers doing so. This concern is of course nothing new, as Indian Country braces for and resists the STOP Act, which would essentially import state and big-tobacco interests into Reservation economies under color of federal law. Wolves in sheep’s clothing; Trojan horse; pick your cliché.

Besides the clarity provided by Wilbur, and its limitation on the reach of the CCTA, in the end, a state was still able to enforce its laws on the Reservation, against Reservation Indians.

Anthony Broadman is a partner at Galanda Broadman PLLC. He can be reached at 206.321.2672, anthony@galandabroadman.com, or via www.galandabroadman.com.