Wisconsin Law Firm Wins Key Ruling on Tribal Jurisdiction
National Law Journal
Wisconsin Law Firm Wins Key Ruling on Tribal Jurisdiction
In a case highlighting jurisdictional disputes between U.S. and tribal courts, a federal appeals court has granted a key victory to the Godfrey & Kahn law firm involving malpractice claims over a $50 million bond deal for a Native American tribe in Wisconsin.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, reversing a lower court’s decision, ruled that the Milwaukee firm could pursue an injunction to halt a tribal court lawsuit brought against it by the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians. The firm, which served as counsel to the tribe, faces malpractice claims over bonds earmarked for a failed riverboat casino.
The case highlights the increasing tension over which courts should decide legal disputes between Indian tribes and nonmembers. On Dec. 7, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to venture into this thicket. Dollar General Corp. is challenging tribal court jurisdiction over a sexual assault case brought by a store intern who is a member of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.
“It’s an ongoing concern with this court—the authority that tribal courts have over non-Indians,” said Richard Guest, staff attorney for the Native American Rights Fund, a nonprofit organization in Washington that advocates for tribal sovereignty in U.S. courts.
The Seventh Circuit case centers around bonds the tribe issued in part to finance the riverboat casino project in Natchez, Mississippi. After the tribe’s corporation defaulted on the bonds, the trustee, Wells Fargo Bank N.A., sued in 2009.
But the tribe’s corporation, organized under tribal law, countered that the bond contracts were void under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act because they hadn’t been submitted to the National Indian Gaming Commission. That meant the tribe’s waiver of sovereign immunity in those contracts didn’t apply and the U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction over the dispute. A federal judge agreed and dismissed the case.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit ruled in 2011 that the underlying contract was void but remanded as to related bond documents.
More
http://m.nationallawjournal.com/module/alm/app/nlj.do?cn=20151202&pt=Daily+Headlines&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=National+Law+Journal#!/article/1757098374