Blog
Today Gabe Galanda delivered a webinar for the U.S. Department of the Interior's Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development, titled, "How to Structure Your Native Business." Here are his slides.
Gabriel “Gabe” Galanda is the Managing Partner at Galanda Broadman. He is a citizen of the Round Valley Indian Tribes. Gabe can be reached at 206.300.7801 or gabe@galandabroadman.com.
We are proud to serve as local amicus counsel on behalf of the Coalition Against Trafficking In Women (CATW) in the Washington Supreme Court matter J.S., S.L., & L.C. v. Village Voice Media Holdings, L.L.C. The brief is available here.
Since Craigslist removed its “Adult Services” sections, backpage.com, a U.S. based corporation owned by Village Voice Media Holdings LLC, has become traffickers' website of choice. CATW continues to work to create an internet free of sex trafficking, through its campaign to hold backpage.com accountable for the untold number of human beings whose exploitation continues to be carried out through the ads hosted on this platform.
Our work on behalf of CATW is part of Galanda Broadman PLLC's firm commitment to fighting violence and exploitation of women and children, particularly in Indian Country, where such exploitation is particularly prevalent.
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.
Law360 featured Gabe Galanda in "Big Lagoon Case Presents Key Test For Tribal Casino Deals."
For many tribes, the recent Big Lagoon decision was seen as an expansion of the Patchak decision that could allow nearly indefinite challenges to tribal projects, particularly casinos.
"Patchak essentially extended the statute of limitations on challenges to Indian trust status from 30 days to six years. Big Lagoon has further extended it to 20 years, if not an entire century," said Gabriel S. Galanda of Galanda Broadman PLLC. "If the original decision is sustained, horrifically, there will be no such thing as quiet title to Indian trust lands. The results for tribes would be disastrous in countless ways."
***
Big Lagoon had originally brought the suit against California in an effort to compel the state into negotiations for its casino proposal.
"California will certainly make as much hay as possible about the gameability issue, because if they succeed in getting the 11-judge panel to affirm the three-judge panel's decision, the state will gain leverage in compact and other negotiations with tribes," Galanda said.***
Should California win in its endeavor before the en banc panel on Wednesday, several tribal casino projects could be placed at risk, according to experts.
"Folks in the Indian casino development world, most notably financiers, are certainly adding 'Big Lagoon' to their due diligence lists," Galanda said. "But because the original Ninth Circuit decision is so anomalous — so much so that the United States is now advocating against that decision as an amicus — they are holding their breath for reversal."***
Should Big Lagoon lose, however, several attorneys would expect to see a Supreme Court bid.
"If Big Lagoon loses on the Indian land gameability issue, they will have no choice but to appeal to the Supreme Court. And despite the recent tribal win in Bay Mills, the tribe should be afraid — very, very afraid — about that possibility," Galanda said. "Patchak, in particular, does not portend well for Big Lagoon should they need to seek review by the high court. Nor does Carcieri."
Gabriel “Gabe” Galanda is the Managing Partner at Galanda Broadman. He is a citizen of the Round Valley Indian Tribes. Gabe can be reached at 206.300.7801 or gabe@galandabroadman.com.
Yesterday Ryan Dreveskracht was elected to serve as a Trustee for the WSBA Indian Law Section. He will serve a three-year term on the Section's Executive Board.
The Indian Law Section provides a forum for practitioners representing clients affected by Indian law. Federal, tribal and state laws, executive and administrative actions, and court decisions produce a complex and rapidly evolving array of law that affects legal services. The Section schedules CLE programs on subjects that provide information to practitioners representing clients affected by Indian law. Section members also receive the Indian Law Newsletter, which highlights recent developments in Indian law.
Galanda Broadman has a long history of service to the Indian Law Section. Gabe Galanda is a past Section Chair and past Editor of its Indian Law Newsletter and Anthony Broadman is the current Editor of the Newsletter.
Ryan Dreveskracht is an Associate at Galanda Broadman, PLLC. His practice focuses on representing tribal governments in public affairs, energy, gaming, taxation, and general economic development. He can be reached at 206.909.3842 or ryan@galandabroadman.com.
At the invitation of the U.S. Department of the Interior's Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development, Gabe Galanda will deliver a webinar training titled, "How to Structure Your Native Business," on September 24, 2014, at 11 AM PDT.
Gabriel “Gabe” Galanda is the Managing Partner at Galanda Broadman. He is a citizen of the Round Valley Indian Tribes. Gabe can be reached at 206.300.7801 or gabe@galandabroadman.com.
Gabe Galanda has been named to the Advisory Board for the Seattle University School of Law's Center for Indian Law and Policy, which was founded by tribal lawyer pioneer Doug Nash (Nez Perce).
From left, Prof. Catherine O'Neill, Gabe, Lisa Koop (Delaware), Alix Foster, Erica Wolf, and Eric Eberhard; not pictured, Sara Lawson (Iowa), Gina Beckwith (Port Gamble S'Klallam).
Gabriel “Gabe” Galanda is the Managing Partner at Galanda Broadman. He is a citizen of the Round Valley Indian Tribes. Gabe can be reached at 206.300.7801 or gabe@galandabroadman.com.
“Obviously, disenrollment is about the money" -- Ben Hinmon, Saginaw Chippewa Disenrollee
More precisely, disenrollment is about tribal per capitas. Is there an economic level at which per capita distributions do not trigger self-termination tendencies? Sadly, there is no empirical data that bears that out.
Consider this New York Times article, "What happens when the poor receive a stipend?," about the research findings of Jane Costello, an epidemiologist at Duke University Medical School.
For the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Dr. Costello concluded that per capitas--which she insightfully refers to as income "supplements" or "stipends"--seemingly helped Cherokee families: "Minor crimes committed by Cherokee youth declined. On-time high school graduation rates improved..."
Critically, Dr. Costello posits, "the supplements weren’t enough for members to stop working entirely." Instead: "The supplements eased the strain of [a] feast-or-famine existence. . . Some used the money to pay a few months’ worth of bills in advance. Others bought their children clothes for school, or even Christmas presents." All good.
But what Dr. Costello apparently failed to evaluate is whether tribal per capitas/income supplements contributed to the disenrollment of several hundred Eastern Cherokees.
Indeed, nobody in academia has to my knowledge ever seriously looked at the societal impacts of, and the correlation between, tribal per capita distributions and mass disenrollment.
That is because those issues remain taboo within the Indian Country academic establishment, despite the current Indian disenrollment epidemic and the ability of our brightest minds to identify the causes and develop the cures.
As a Native person rightfully commented on a recent column by Professor David Wilkins: "There are no easy answers but I believe academia deserves as much of the blame as anyone for not facing this reality and attacking it head on."
Gabriel “Gabe” Galanda is the Managing Partner at Galanda Broadman. He is a citizen of the Round Valley Indian Tribes. Gabe can be reached at 206.300.7801 or gabe@galandabroadman.com.
By Anthony Broadman
The Washington State Supreme Court held yesterday that when a tribal corporation contractually waives its sovereign immunity and consents to state court jurisdiction, Washington courts have jurisdiction over lawsuits arising out of that contract.
The Court’s holding in Outsource Services Management, LLC v. Nooksack Business Corporation comes as no surprise—in fact, the Court of Appeals decision below probably should not have been appealed. But the reasoning employed by the majority to get to this unsurprising result should guide and caution contracting parties operating under Washington law.
Moving forward tribes, tribal entities, and their business partners must operate under the assumption that a lawsuit arising out of a contract containing a waiver of sovereign immunity and consent to state court jurisdiction will likely fit squarely in a state forum. Presumably, most tribes were already operating in this reality. Here, of concern, the majority in Outsource relied on Powell v. Farris, a 1980 state Supreme Court case that extended state court jurisdiction to business dissolution dispute involving a contract formed off reservation, between a tribal member and a non-Indian business partner.
Notably, there was no reservation land at issue in Powell. In Outsource—where there was, arguably, reservation land at issue—the Court expanded Powell to state the rule that “Washington State courts generally have jurisdiction over civil disputes in Indian country if either (1) [there is Public Law 280 jurisdiction] or (2) asserting jurisdiction would not infringe on the rights of the tribe to make its own laws and be ruled by them.”
The lesson here is that Tribes who want their judiciaries to have strong bases for jurisdiction can ensure that inappropriate assertions of jurisdiction do “infringe on the rights of the tribe to make its own laws and be ruled by them” through express legislation.
In sum, once a tribal entity has waived sovereign immunity and consented to state court jurisdiction, there is little to fight about regarding jurisdiction. Outsource unfortunately gave the Court the opportunity to write a somewhat clumsy “general rule” that now must be followed when drafting dispute resolution provisions.
The dissenters disagreed with the majority in two important ways. Justices McCloud and González did not believe the Tribe had actually consented to state court jurisdiction. Further, the dissenters would require an express “waiver of jurisdictional issues” pursuant to Williams v. Lee.
Following Outsource, the very rough voting patterns of the Washington State Supreme Court in modern Indian law cases, are as follows:
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.
Gabe Galanda is co-chairing the 12th Annual Gaming Law Summit and will discuss "Ethical Considerations," and Anthony Broadman will talk about "Indian Gaming Taxation." The Summit will happen on December 11 and 12, 2014, in Seattle.
Gabriel “Gabe” Galanda is the Managing Partner at Galanda Broadman. Anthony Broadman is also a partner with the firm. Gabe is a citizen of the Round Valley Indian Tribes. Galanda Broadman handles all varieties of gaming law matters.
By Anthony Broadman
As recently as last year, Big Tobacco appeared to have forged a formidable alliance with both the feds and states against Tribal tobacco. But when the ATF withdrew its position under the PACT Act, it pulled the lynchpin to that alliance. Now, and by no coincidence, at least RJ Reynolds has turned on the feds in connection with Tribal Tobacco.
Last week, Reynolds filed suit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the latest attack in Big Tobacco’s war on Tribal economic development. In the lawsuit, RJ Reynolds alleges that the USDA has failed to collect fees from tribal cigarette manufacturers, and in doing so has artificially inflated the amount that RJ Reynolds is required to pay.
Of course, Big Tobacco cannot pursue Tribal entities directly, so it has targeted federal agencies—here, the USDA through the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). RJ Reynolds alleges that the USDA refused to recalculate Reynolds’ share of fees because the evidence presented by the tobacco maker to the agency was insufficient. Suffice it to say, however, Big Tobacco is not letting the feds off that easy.
The suit raises numerous red flags for tribes. For one, tribes are indispensible parties who cannot be joined because of their sovereign status, warranting dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 19. In addition, if the USDA intends to take any action in connection with including tribal tobacco in its calculation of Tobacco Trust Fund fees, it will have to consult with affected Tribes pursuant to its consultation policy or risk being sued by those Tribes under the APA.
In all, while RJ Reynolds may not succeed in prosecuting its lawsuit, the suit is another sign that Big Tobacco will keep the pressure on the federal government regarding tobacco in Indian Country.
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.
Best Law Firms U.S. News & World Report 2013-2023
Best Lawyers in America 2007-2023
Super Lawyers, 2010-2023
Chambers USA, 2016-2023
