Washington State Legislature considers wider authority for tribal courts

A proposed bill would create a “retrocession” procedure by which a tribe can ask the state to return its jurisdiction over not just criminal, but also civil matters, to the federal government and the tribes themselves. The state would still have jurisdiction over sexually violent predators.

By SHANNON DININNY
The Associated Press (Originally published by The Seattle Times)

YAKIMA — Lawmakers in Washington are considering a proposal to start dismantling the state’s civil jurisdiction over American Indians, a step many consider long overdue. But some say they worry that restoring full sovereignty to tribes over their members might subject outsiders to unfair treatment in tribal courts.Congress passed a law delegating jurisdiction over tribes to some states in 1953, at a time when the government was forcing Indians to assimilate. The law was sparked in part by public demand for improved law enforcement on reservations and a desire to offload financial burdens in the wake of World War II.States such as Nebraska and Oregon have unraveled parts of the federal mandate in the years since. In Washington, the idea has garnered broad support after a series of meetings last year by a task force that included law enforcement, prosecutors and representatives of counties and cities.Some people, though, fear tribes may fail to ensure due process for everyone, given a perceived lack of separation between executive and judicial branches in some tribal governments. Some observers contend state courts must remain an option to settle disputes.

Jack Yearout spent months trying to get a parenting plan approved by the tribal court of the Yakama Nation, the state’s largest tribe, which resides on a sprawling reservation east of the Cascades.

Yearout is an enrolled member of the Nez Perce tribe in Idaho. The mother of his 5-year-old daughter, meanwhile, has ties to the Yakama Nation.

After several rulings in his favor, allowing him to visit his daughter, the Yakama Tribal Council adopted a resolution last summer stripping authority over child-custody cases from the Yakama tribal courts, an example of an executive branch removing authority from a judicial branch.

“I support tribal sovereignty, but in my case I didn’t get due justice from the tribal court,” Yearout said.

The federal law mandated civil and criminal jurisdiction over tribes in six states and authorized several others to assume jurisdiction if they chose. Washington did so in 1963, assuming state involvement in such matters as juvenile delinquency, truancy, mental illness and adoption proceedings and enabling state courts to hear cases involving Indians.

Tribes have long considered the law a breach of the treaties guaranteeing their sovereignty.

Significant effort has been made in recent years to improve law enforcement and court systems on reservations, and Washington already has returned criminal jurisdiction to some tribes.

The proposed bill creates a “retrocession” procedure by which a tribe can ask the state to return its jurisdiction over not just criminal, but also civil matters, to the federal government and the tribes themselves. The state would retain jurisdiction over sexually violent predators.

Retrocession allows tribes to be treated like sovereign governments, as they were promised, and it allows states to pass budget burdens off on another government entity, just as occurred decades ago, said Carole Goldberg, professor at the UCLA School of Law.

Goldberg also noted that tribes often win federal grants and assistance that states don’t qualify for, which could improve services in a local community.

Democratic state Rep. John McCoy, the bill’s sponsor and a member of Washington’s Tulalip Tribes, said the biggest concerns about the bill have centered on whether the non-Indian community is losing any rights.

“Tribes have co-jurisdiction now, and it’s not your decision on whether tribes get retrocession,” he said. “It’s like we’re the child, and the non-Indian government is the parent.”

About a half-dozen Washington tribes testified in favor of the bill, including the Yakama Nation.

Yakama Tribal Council Chairman Harry Smiskin did not return telephone calls about the bill. However, in a House committee hearing, he said it allows for cohesive law enforcement among tribes and local and state agencies.

He did not address civil jurisdiction.

“This gives members of the Yakama Nation pride in their government again,” Smiskin said. “It says there is a true government-to-government relationship with the state of Washington.”

The proposal is widely expected to pass the Legislature.

Gregoire in favor

The governor’s office participated in the task force last year, and Gov. Chris Gregoire supports giving tribes a process to request retrocession, spokeswoman Karina Shagren said, adding that the legislation provides no guarantee that retrocession will occur and requires the governor’s approval of each request.

Yearout, the Idaho father, ultimately filed suit in state court, where a judge ordered the two sides into mediation. Last month, they agreed on a parenting plan, which was filed in tribal court and enforceable in state court.

The Yakama Nation also ended up abandoning its child-custody resolution.

Yearout said he was pleased to have the case behind him and to spend time with his daughter, but said, “I did everything I could to get a decision from Yakama tribal court, but the tribal council got involved.”

Several attorneys, who have had cases before Washington tribes but declined to speak on the record, raised concerns about political intervention in tribal courts, particularly in family court matters. Some contend tribes need to adopt constitutional amendments that better protect against such occurrences.

More discussion urged

Rep. Bill Hinkle, R-Cle Elum, said he opposes the bill, in part because of those concerns, but also because he believes it requires more discussion.

“There are valid concerns about the impact on nontribal members,” he said. “This is an issue that needs to be discussed over a period of years, now pushed through a short session.”

There’s no denying that tribal constitutions provided to tribes by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the 1930s did not provide for a clear separation of powers, and it probably behooves them to consider amending those constitutions to fix that oversight, said Rob Roy Smith, Seattle University adjunct professor of federal Indian law.

But having a tribal executive body step in to overrule a court decision is no different from Congress passing a law to overturn a federal court ruling, or the Legislature passing a law that overturns a state court, he said.

“Tribal courts have become extremely sophisticated over the last decade, and they are more than competent to hear the disputes that are currently being heard in state court,” Smith said. “No one is going to get railroaded in tribal court.”

OVW Fiscal Year 2012 Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders Program

OVW Fiscal Year 2012 Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders Program – The United States Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) (www.ovw.usdoj.gov) is pleased to announce that it is seeking applications for the Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders Program). This program furthers the Department of Justice’s mission by encouraging State, local, and Tribal governments and State, local, and Tribal courts to treat sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking as serious violations of criminal law requiring the coordinated involvement of the entire criminal justice system.  Current Closing Date for Applications: March 12, 2012.

Federal Court Finds Interior Violates Self-Determination Act in Denying Public Safety Funds to Tribes in P.L. 280 States

In a decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, the court ruled that the Bureau of Indian Affairs cannot deny law enforcement funding to tribes just because tribes are located within in a P.L. 280 state (decision only applies to tribes within the Eight Circuit).

From the decision …

As discussed below, the Court finds that Defendants may not decline Plaintiff’s 638 contract for law enforcement funding solely on the basis of Plaintiff’s location in a P.L. 280 state. Defendants’ policy violates the ISDEAA, the APA, and Plaintiff’s right to equal protection of the law. To be clear, the Court is not requiring that Defendants issue the contract or otherwise dictating how Defendants should allocate their funds. Instead, to level the playing field and ensure that Plaintiff’s request receives a fair evaluation, the Court enjoins Defendants from using California’s P.L. 280 status as the sole reason for declining Plaintiff’s contract proposal.

For the reasons discussed above, the Court hereby enjoins Defendants from denying Plaintiff’s 638 contract solely on the basis of California’s status as a P.L. 280 state. The Court finds that Defendants’ unwritten policy of denying law enforcement funding to tribes in P.L. 280 states violates the ISDEAA, the Administrative Procedures Act, and Plaintiff’s right to equal protection of the law. The Court therefore GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment.

Here are the materials in Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians (S.D. Cal.) (from Turtle Talk):

• DCT Order Granting Los Coyotes Motion
• Los Coyotes Band Motion for Summary J
• Interior Motion for Summary J
• Los Coyotes Reply
• Interior Reply

Native Foster Care: Lost Children, Shattered Families

Overview of a NPR News three-part investigation

Nearly 700 Native American children in South Dakota are being removed from their homes every year, sometimes under questionable circumstances. An NPR News investigation has found that the state is largely failing to place them according to the law. The vast majority of native kids in foster care in South Dakota are in nonnative homes or group homes, according to an NPR analysis of state records.

More From NPR’s Investigation

• Part 1: Incentives And Cultural Bias Fuel Foster System
  Native American grandparents like Janice Howe fight to bring children back to the reservation.
• Part 2: Tribes Question Foster Group’s Power And Influence
  In South Dakota, Children’s Home Society cares for hundreds of Native American children
• Part 3: Native Survivors Of Foster Care Return Home
  Native Americans like Dwayne Stenstrom, who were sent away as children, seek the heritage they lost.
• A Fight For Her Grandchildren Mirrors A Native Past
  Suzanne Crow’s struggle to bring home her grandchildren harkens her boarding school days.

Disproportionality Rates of Native American Children In Foster Care

A nation-wide comparison of the Native American child population in state child welfare systems.

Years ago, thousands of Native American children were forcibly removed from their homes and sent to boarding schools, where the motto of the schools’ founder was “Kill the Indian, Save the Man.” Children lost touch with their culture, traditions and families. Many suffered horrible abuse, leaving entire generations missing from the one place whose future depended on them — their tribes.

In 1978, Congress tried to put a stop to it. They passed the Indian Child Welfare Act, which says except in the rarest circumstances, Native American children must be placed with their relatives or tribes. It also says states must do everything it can to keep native families together.

But 32 states are failing to abide by the act in one way or another, and, an NPR investigation has found, nowhere is that more apparent than in South Dakota.

“Cousins are disappearing; family members are disappearing,” said Peter Lengkeek, a Crow Creek Tribal Council member. “It’s kidnapping. That’s how we see it.”

State officials say they have to do what’s in the best interest of the child, but the state does have a financial incentive to remove the children. The state receives thousands of dollars from the federal government for every child it takes from a family, and in some cases the state gets even more money if the child is Native American. The result is that South Dakota is now removing children at a rate higher than the vast majority of other states in the country.

Native American families feel the brunt of this. Their children make up less than 15 percent of the child population, yet they make up more than half of the children in foster care.

Critics say foster care in South Dakota has become a powerhouse for private group home providers who bring in millions of dollars in state contracts to care for kids. Among them is Children’s Home Society, the state’s largest foster care provider, which has close ties with top government officials. It used to be run by South Dakota’s Gov. Dennis Daugard. An NPR investigation has found that Daugard was on the group’s payroll while he was lieutenant governor — and while the group received tens of millions of dollars in no-bid state contracts. It’s an unusual relationship highlighting the powerful role money and politics play in South Dakota’s foster care system.

“They make a living off of our children,” said Juanita Sherick, the tribal social worker for the Pine Ridge reservation.

Some children are removed from their homes for legitimate reasons. But in South Dakota very few are taken because they’ve been physically or sexually abused. Most are taken under a far more subjective set of circumstances. The state says the parents are neglectful. But NPR’s investigation shows that even Native American children who grow up to become foster care success stories, living happy, productive lives, say the loss of their culture and identities leaves a deep hole they spend years trying hopelessly to fill.

• Read the complete first part of NPR’s yearlong investigation here.

Disproportionality Rates for Children of Color in Foster Care

The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges recently released a Technical Assistance Bulletin which identifies the disproportionality rates for all states and select Model Courts across the country. Utilizing 2009 Adoption and Foster Care Reporting System (AFCARS) and 2010 census data, the Disproportionality Rates for Children of Color in Foster Care Technical Assistance Bulletin provides the most current estimates of racial disproportionality. The Bulletin discusses how disproportionality can be measured and illustrates disproportionality rates across the U.S. for African American, Native American and Hispanic/Latino children.

Children of color are disproportionately represented in the United States foster care system. In most states, there are higher proportions of African American/Black and Native American children in foster care than in the general child population. In some states, Hispanic/Latino children are disproportionately represented as well. The overrepresentation of children of color is an issue of interest to juvenile dependency stakeholders, practitioners, and scholars. This Technical Assistant Bulletin briefly describes the issue of disproportionality, including an overview of prior research and information on how disproportionality can be measured. Disproportionality rates are then presented for all 50 states and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Model Court jurisdictions.

Across the United States, Native American children are overrepresented in foster care at a rate of 2.2 times their rate in the general population. While not all state show disproportionality, 21 states do have some overrepresentation. Twenty-six percent of the states that have overrepresentation have a disproportionality index of greater than 4.1. In Minnesota, the disproportionality is index 11.6.

Governor Brown Establishes Tribal Advisor to Strengthen Communication, Collaboration with California’s Native American Tribes

SACRAMENTO – In order to strengthen communication and collaboration between California state government and Native American Tribes, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today issued an Executive Order establishing the position of Governor’s Tribal Advisor in the Office of the Governor. This position will serve as a direct link between the Governor’s Office and tribal governments on matters including legislation, policy and regulation. Governor Brown signed the Executive Order today while attending the TASIN All California Tribes Meeting at the Sheraton Hotel in Sacramento, CA.

The text of the Executive Order is below:

EXECUTIVE ORDER B-10-11

WHEREAS California is home to many Native American Tribes with whom the State of California has an important relationship, as set forth and affirmed in state and federal law; and

WHEREAS the State of California recognizes and reaffirms the inherent right of these Tribes to exercise sovereign authority over their members and territory; and

WHEREAS the State and the Tribes are better able to adopt and implement mutually-beneficial policies when they cooperate and engage in meaningful consultation; and

WHEREAS the State is committed to strengthening and sustaining effective government-to-government relationships between the State and the Tribes by identifying areas of mutual concern and working to develop partnerships and consensus; and

WHEREAS tribal people, as both citizens of California and their respective sovereign nations, have a shared interest in creating increased opportunities for all California citizens.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor of the State of California, by virtue of the power vested in me by the Constitution and the statutes of the State of California, do hereby issue the following orders to become effective immediately:

IT IS ORDERED that the position of Governor’s Tribal Advisor shall exist within the Office of the Governor;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Governor’s Tribal Advisor shall oversee and implement effective government-to-government consultation between my Administration and Tribes on policies that affect California tribal communities, and shall:

• Serve as a direct link between the Tribes and the Governor of the State of California.
• Facilitate communication and consultations between the Tribes, the Office of the Governor, state agencies, and agency tribal liaisons.
• Review state legislation and regulations affecting Tribes and make recommendations on these proposals.

IT IS FUTHER ORDERED that the Office of the Governor shall meet regularly with the elected officials of California Indian Tribes to discuss state policies that may affect tribal communities.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that it is the policy of this Administration that every state agency and department subject to my executive control shall encourage communication and consultation with California Indian Tribes. Agencies and departments shall permit elected officials and other representatives of tribal governments to provide meaningful input into the development of legislation, regulations, rules, and policies on matters that may affect tribal communities.

For purposes of this Order, the terms “Tribe,” “California Indian Tribe”, and “tribal” include all Federally Recognized Tribes and other California Native Americans.

This Executive Order is not intended to create, and does not create, any rights or benefits, whether substantive or procedural, or enforceable at law or in equity, against the State of California or its agencies, departments, entities, officers, employees, or any other person.

I FURTHER DIRECT that as soon as hereafter possible, this Order shall be filed with the Office of the Secretary of State and that it be given widespread publicity and notice.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my
hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of California to be affixed this 19th day of September 2011.

State of Hawaii Enacts Law Recognizing Native Hawaiian Self-Determination

Here is the governor’s webpage and video on the signing of the law. The text of the governor’s release:

Honolulu –Governor Neil Abercrombie signed into law a measure that recognizes Native Hawaiians as the indigenous people of Hawai’i.  Act 195 gives the Governor the power to appoint a five-member Native Hawaiian Roll Commission that will build the foundation for self-determination.

“This is an important step for the future of Native Hawaiian self-determination and the ability for Native Hawaiians to decide their own future,” stated Governor Abercrombie.  “This Commission will put together the roll of qualified and interested Native Hawaiians who want to help determine the course of Hawai’i’s indigenous people.”

Act 195 starts the process that will eventually lead to Native Hawaiian Recognition. While in the U.S. House of Representatives, then-Congressman Abercrombie worked closely with U.S. Senator Daniel K. Akaka on moving the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, which was first introduced in 1999. In 2000 and 2007, then-Congressman Abercrombie successfully shepherded the legislation through the U.S. House of Representatives committees and won approval by the full House.

U.S. Senator Akaka, who is in Washington D.C., praised the bill signing stating: “The enactment of this bill is yet another example of Hawai’i’s ongoing desire to recognize the unique contributions and traditions of the Native people in our state.  Native Hawaiian values shape our sense of identity, our sense of aloha for one another, and our sense of what is pono, what is just.  This new law complements our efforts in Congress and demonstrates that the people of Hawai’i strongly support the right of Native Hawaiians to reorganize and perpetuate their culture and way of life.”

More than 150 people attended today’s bill signing ceremony at Washington Place this afternoon, including groups representing the ali’i societies and trusts; OHA trustees, Native Hawaiian civic clubs, and state lawmakers.

Governor Abercrombie has 180 days to appoint the five-member Native Hawaiian Roll Commission.  The Commission will be responsible for preparing and maintaining a roll of qualified Native Hawaiians as defined by the Act. The roll is to be used as the basis for participation in the organization of a Native Hawaiian governing entity.  The Commission is composed of five members, one from each county and one at-large seat.  Once its work is completed, the Governor will dissolve the Commission.

“We recognize the special relationship to Native Hawaiians that is part of our public conscience, enshrined in our laws, and entrusted to our leaders,” Governor Abercrombie said.  “With the signing of this bill, the State of Hawai’i is closer to the reorganization of a Native Hawaiian governing entity. As Native Hawaiians rise, all of Hawai’i rises.”

The Office of the Governor will announce the application process for consideration to be named to the Commission later this week.

Oregon lawmakers give tribal police full authority

From the Stamford Advocate

June 29, 2011 (AP) — The Oregon Legislature voted Wednesday to give tribal police the same off-reservation authority as non-tribal officers, despite objections from county sheriffs who said the measure would open the door to lawsuits and give tribal officers unprecedented authority.

The House and Senate both approved the measure after some Republican lawmakers in the House argued the bill doesn’t have enough oversight to ensure the tribes comply with state law. The measure now goes to Gov. John Kitzhaber who has said he supports the bill.

It would give tribal officers limited authority off reservations for two years, including the power to continue pursuing suspects who leave tribal land and to take action when a crime is committed in front of them.

Beginning in 2013, the measure then expands the authority of tribal officers, giving them full police authority through 2015. Republicans Andy Olson of Albany, Greg Smith of Heppner and Matt Wingard of Wilsonville joined all 30 Democrats in approving the measure in the House on a 33-25 vote. The Senate approved 19-10.

The Oregon Supreme Court ruled this year that tribal officers can make an arrest off the reservation if they’re in “hot pursuit.” The decision stemmed from a 2005 police chase that began on the Warm Springs Reservation and ended in Jefferson County. A Warm Springs officer who wasn’t certified by the state law enforcement academy or deputized by the county sheriff made the stop.

The suspect appealed his conviction, arguing that the tribal officer didn’t have the authority to make the stop. The state Court of Appeals agreed with the suspect, but the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the tribal officer did have authority.

House co-speaker Arnie Roblan, D-Coos Bay, said the Supreme Court ruling is a good start, but the bill is necessary for tribal officers who encounter other kinds of crimes.

“If they stopped an assault, they would have to go back to Supreme Court to see if they could make that arrest,” Roblan said.

Under the measure, tribal police officers would be granted limited police authority if they obtain certification from the state Department of Public Safety Standards and Training and the tribe agrees to certain rules of insurance, tort liability and evidence.

Rep. Cliff Bentz, R-Ontario, noted language in the bill that said the tribe’s rules of preservation of evidence and public records, among other issues, be “substantially similar” to Oregon law.

“If I were still a criminal defense lawyer, I would scream with joy at that (phrase),” Bentz said. “This bill will result in litigation after litigation after litigation.”

The Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association was the most vocal opponent of the measure. It said the measure would give tribal officers authority off the reservation but would continue to restrict authority of non-tribal officers on reservations.

Child Welfare — Education System Collaborations to Increase Educational Stability

Child Welfare — Education System Collaborations to Increase Educational Stability – The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Children’s Bureau (CB) announces the availability of 17-month infrastructure building grants to support collaborative initiatives between State, local, or tribal child welfare agencies and education systems to improve educational stability and permanency outcomes for youth between the ages of 10 to 17 years old in the child welfare system. Educational and medical services are crucial supports for many families adopting children from foster care, especially children who have special education needs or extensive medical or mental health treatment needs. Through this funding opportunity communities can develop infrastructure to address barriers to permanency for youth as well as implement multi-disciplinary interventions to improve the socio-emotional and behavioral well-being youth in care. Applicants will propose viable partnerships between child welfare agencies, education systems, and other critical stakeholders, such as courts, health and mental health agencies to ensure youth in care are afforded the ability to succeed and thrive in educational settings to facilitate permanency including adoption and other post-permanency supports. Due Date for Applications: July 26, 2011.

Tribal police bill dies again

Legislation would have allowed for arrest of non-tribal members

Posted: Friday, February 18, 2011 12:00 am

Tribal police bill dies again By TOM HASSLINGER/Staff writer The Coeur d’ Alene Press

COEUR d’ALENE – A bill that would have given tribal police the authority to arrest non-tribal members on Idaho reservations died Thursday.

House lawmakers narrowly rejected the bill – brought to Boise by the Coeur d’Alene Tribe – 35-34.

It’s the second consecutive year the Tribe attempted to remedy a law enforcement loophole between county and tribal officers at the state level, and the second year in a row an agreement won’t be reached.

“It’s disappointing,” Tribe Spokesman Marc Stewart said of the vote. “Despite the setback the Tribe is committed to protecting the reservation community.”

That could come by federally deputizing officers in the future, he said.

“The Tribe will explore all of its option moving forward, Stewart said.

Opponents of the bill agreed something must be done to repair the working relationship between the Tribe and Benewah County moving forward.

“I would hope we could come back and sit down and work something out,” said Rep. Dick Harwood, R-St. Maries, who spoke against the bill on Thursday. “Everyone knows this is a big, serious thing. It was good debate on both sides, but it needs to be worked out.”

The bill, HB 111, would have allowed tribal police officers to work as police officers under state law, should they have all the required training and insurance. It wouldn’t have required the county’s participation, and non-tribal criminal offenders would have been cited into state court, not tribal court.

The debate on Thursday – as it was last year – was emotional.

Supporters, including Rep. Mack Shirley of Rexburg said the bill wasn’t about anything other than “to provide proper law enforcement within the boundaries of the reservation.”

But opponents said it was too far reaching, a constitutional question since non-members don’t have authority over tribal elections or policies.

“It was tough for me because it was all in my district, both of my constituents,” Harwood said. “It was tough to make the call. It boiled down to constitutional rights being taken away or not being taken away.”

He said accusations that prejudice and biases played a part in opposing the bill were off base.

Last year, the Tribe dropped proposed legislation after reaching an 11th hour cross-deputization agreement with Benewah County. After the legislative session ended, the deal fell through, with both sides accusing the other of altering language at the last minute enough to changed its meaning.

Currently, the Tribe’s police force can detain non-Indians on the reservation who are suspected of breaking the law. But its officers can’t arrest them without a pact with Benewah County. Tribal officers say they waited more than 1,000 hours combined last year before county or the Idaho State Police officers arrived to take over, wasting time, money and creating a public-safety gap.

This year, Benewah County also wanted an agreement from the Tribe not to write citations to non-Indians for violations of its own tribal laws, including those governing water quality, docks on the lake or field burning. The Idaho Association of Counties as well as state law enforcement organizations, supported the county’s position and opposed the bill.

“I still want to see, in some way, for the Tribe and the county to cooperate again,” said Benewah County Prosecutor Doug Payne, from his St. Maries office.

He said the working relationship between the sides used to be a good one until the last couple of years.

“I’d like to see us get back to that status,” he said, adding that he hoped the close vote would bring the sides back to the local negotiating table.

The Tribe has a cross-deputization pact in place with Kootenai County, but not with Benewah County since 2007.

When the Tribe returned to the Legislature this year, its leaders said their only other alternative was to pursue expanded law enforcement authority under a federal law passed by Congress last year meant to help address public safety gaps on Indian reservations across the nation.

If it does that, however, any non-Indians arrested on the reservation would have to go to federal, not state court.

Stewart said that wasn’t the preferred choice, but a road the Tribe could pursue now.

He added that a decision on the next step will likely be made in the coming weeks.

“We’re disappointed, but determined” to find a solution, he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.