About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (April 2022 - August 2022)

handle is hein.ali/relwamin0011 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE THE LAW OF AMERICAN INDIANS CHAPTER 2. TRIBAL AUTHORITY DEFINITIONS SUBCHAPTER 1. TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY IN GENERAL § 16. Constitutional Rights of Persons Under Tribal Jurisdiction C.A.10, 2022. Com. (a) quot. in sup. (quoting § 16, com. (a), of Prop. Final Draft, 2021, which is now § 16, com. (a), of the Official Text). Members of Native American tribe who had been temporarily banished filed a petition for habeas corpus, alleging that their banishment from the tribal reservation constituted detention. The district court dismissed petitioners' petition. This court reversed and remanded, holding that the district court abused its discretion by failing to address the threshold issue of whether petitioners exhausted their remedies in tribal court. The court explained that, under Restatement of the Law, The Law of American Indians § 16, Comment a, the subject-matter jurisdiction of federal courts was limited to actions for habeas corpus relief, and litigants complicated case law on the subject by frequently attempting to characterize harms purportedly caused by tribal authorities as a form of detention in order to evade tribal adjudication. Chegup v. Ute Indian Tribe of Uintah and Ouray Reservation, 28 F.4th 1051, 1063. SUBCHAPTER 2. THE POWERS OF INDIAN TRIBES § 28. Tribal-Court Exhaustion Rule C.A.10, 2022. Com. (a) quot. in sup. (quoting § 28, com. (a), of Prop. Final Draft, 2021, which is now § 28, com. (a), of the Official Text). Members of Native American tribe who had been temporarily banished filed a petition for habeas corpus, alleging that their banishment from the tribal reservation constituted detention. The district court dismissed petitioners' petition. This court reversed and remanded, holding that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the petition on the grounds that temporary banishment did not constitute detention for the purpose of federal statutes, because it failed to address whether petitioners exhausted their remedies in tribal court. The court explained that resolving the issue of tribal exhaustion was critical, because, under Restatement of the Law, The Law of American Indians § 28, Comment a, adjudication of matters that impaired the power of tribal courts would infringe upon tribal law-making authority, and tribal courts were best qualified to interpret and apply tribal law. Chegup v. Ute Indian Tribe of Uintah and Ouray Reservation, 28 F.4th 1051, 1070. COPYRIGHT C2022 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most