From the very beginning, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) had opposed the VAWA, even requesting that Senate Judiciary Republicans unanimously vote against it because of what he believes are “problematic provisions of the committee bill [that] would give tribal courts authority to arrest, try and imprison any American” – provisions that he believes are “probably unconstitutional.”  Now, Senator Grassley has teamed up with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) to offer “a substitute that would address GOP concerns with the bill.”  Although the full details of Grassley and Hutchinson’s changes have yet to be released, it is likely that they will map their previously stated opposition to providing tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians.

These “concerns” are unfounded and, quite frankly, offending. 

Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision of Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe in 1978, tribal governments had full authority to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians who voluntarily entered into Indian Country and committed crimes.  Lifting restrictions on the ability of tribal governments to exercise this inherent sovereign authority is by no means unconstitutional.  Because the Court’s decision in Oliphant was rooted in federal common law – bluntly racist common law denouncing tribal governments as “inferior” and “dependent upon the fostering care and protection of the [United States],” United States v. Sandoval (1913) – the Supreme Court has held that Congress has full authority restore the pre-1978 status-quo by “lift[ing] the restrictions on the tribes’ criminal jurisdiction.”  United States v. Lara (2004).  In the VAWA Congress has partially done so, and with full constitutional authority.

According to a recent iteration of the Senators’ argument put forth by the Heritage Foundation: “Today, if John and Mary Smith were visiting a casino on an Indian reservation and John assaulted Mary, John would be charged by the federal government with assault and would be prosecuted by the local U.S. Attorney’s Office in federal magistrate court.”

This, of course, is the problem. Were the local U.S. Attorney’s Office doing its job, Indian women would not face a 34-percent chance of being raped.  Evidence collected by the Justice Department, as well as nongovernmental organizations such as Amnesty International, indicate that an overwhelming majority of these cases are going unreported, uninvestigated, and unprosecuted.  Rather than leaving the protection of Indian Country up to federal police forces and prosecutors who have proven themselves incapable and uninterested in putting an end to reservation crime since the sole authority to do so was vested there in 1978, in the VAWA Congress has, correctly for once, determined that tribal justice systems are in the best position to turn things around.  Indeed, the Senators and the Heritage Foundation recognizes this logic vis-à-vis the states: “To address the problem of domestic violence appropriately, the federal government should limit itself to handling tasks that have been assigned to it by the Constitution and which state and local governments cannot perform by themselves.”  Why that same logic does not apply to Indian Country, the Senators and their constituents do not, and cannot, offer an explanation.

Moreover, the Senators are flat-out wrong in assuming that the VAWA would have much play, if any, in this hypothetical.  The VAWA authorizes tribes to exercise criminal jurisdiction only: (1) over domestic violence, (2) when the victim is an enrolled member of an Indian tribe, and (3) where the defendant resides in Indian Country, is employed by the prosecuting tribe, or is a spouse or intimate partner of a member of the prosecuting tribe.  So, unless Mary Smith was a member of an Indian tribe, assuming that John and Mary were married, the tribe would not have jurisdiction over John under the VAWA. 

And, of course, no Republican discussion of tribal court jurisdiction would be complete without the obligatory talk of inferior tribal justice systems that are incapable of upholding non-Indian constitutional rights and notions of due process: “A non-Indian subject to tribal jurisdiction would enjoy few meaningful civil-rights protections. Courts have held, for example, that tribal governments are not bound by the Constitution’s First, Fifth, or Fourteenth Amendments.  What this means is that if somebody is accused of abuse on tribal lands, the accused can kiss normal constitutional protections good-bye.”

Of course, this is wrong.  The Indian Civil Rights Act (“ICRA”), 25 U.S.C. § 1301-1303, requires that tribal courts provide all rights accorded by state and federal courts.  Section 904 of the VAWA also requires that tribal courts provide further minimal guarantees of fairness.  If the ICRA and VAWA are not followed, federal courts have jurisdiction to review the tribal court proceedings – and the VAWA further requires that federal courts grant a stay of the tribal proceeding if there is a substantial likelihood that those provisions of federal law were not followed.  Further, the VAWA does not raise the maximum one-year sentence that tribal courts may impose for any crime.

To any extent that the Senators are arguing that tribal courts are somehow incapable of providing the requisite safeguards, this red herring – based on the same racist arguments of inferiority espoused in Sandoval and Oliphant – should be cast aside.  There is simply no evidence that tribal courts and tribal judges are unable to be fair and just.  To the contrary, numerous studies have proven otherwise.  See e.g. Bethany Berger, Justice and the Outsider: Jurisdiction Over Nonmembers in Tribal Legal Systems, 37 Ariz. St. L.J. 1047 (2005).  For the Senators to assert otherwise is simply irresponsible.  As to Congress’ odd attempt to “protect” its citizens from non-traditional forums, if that duty exists at all, as I’ve said before:  If these citizens don’t trust the ability of tribal courts to be fair and just, then they shouldn’t commit assault or rape on Indian Reservations.

One can only hope that the Grassley-Hutchinson amendment does not make it into the final version of the bill.  Anything less than the limited provisions of the VAWA addressing violence against Indian women, as it is currently drafted, would be an epic failure.  As it is, women are being attacked on an unimaginable scale.  And every study to address the issue has concluded that “[j]urisdictional issues present the main barrier to prosecution” of those offenders and play the largest role in creating the violence against women statistics in Indian country.  Marie Quasius, Native American Rape Victims: Desperately Seeking an Oliphant Fix, 93 Minn. L. Rev. 1902, 1904 (2009).  Only local tribal justice systems are capable of understanding and being accountable to victims of violence and their communities.  For the Senate to ignore this jurisdictional conundrum is a reckless and clear violation of the federal trust responsibility.

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.

The 2nd annual Small Business Saturday® is a day dedicated to supporting small businesses on one of the busiest shopping weekends of the year.

On November 26, we’re asking millions of people to Shop Small® at their favorite local stores and help fuel the economy. When we all shop small, it will be huge.

Today, and throughout the holidays, shop small and buy Indian on your reservation or via the Internet.

Gabriel “Gabe” Galanda is a partner at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian majority-owned law firm.  He is an enrolled member of the Round Valley Indian Tribes of Covelo, California.  He can be reached at 206.691.3631 or gabe@galandabroadman.com, or via galandabroadman.com.

Although the infrastructure needed to support a robust reservation retail sector is largely still lacking in Indian Country, tribal citizens can still buy Indian/local, most notably via the Internet, where all varieties of tribal retail goods and services are available for sale. Indeed, “when you buy from an independent, locally owned business, rather than a nationally owned businesses, significantly more of your money is used to make purchases from other local businesses, service providers and farms — continuing to strengthen the economic base of the community.” This is especially true in Indian Country.

To the extent there are retail stores and/or tribally authorized sales taxation on a reservation, “locally-owned businesses generate a premium in enhanced economic impact to the community and our tax base.”

Indian Country, starting this Black Friday and throughout this holiday season, buy Indian, buy local; buy early and often. Hopefully if you give Indian, you shall receive Indian.  Either way, make the effort to buy from your tribal community or to buy from the inter-tribal economy via the Internet, rather than buying from non-tribal economies. Yes, we can.

Gabriel “Gabe” Galanda is a partner at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian majority-owned law firm.  He is an enrolled member of the Round Valley Indian Tribes of Covelo, California.  He can be reached at 206.691.3631 or gabe@galandabroadman.com, or via galandabroadman.com.

– The State of Indian Gaming in 2012, by NIGA Chairman Ernie Stevens
– NIGC’s Class III MICS: Necessary or Unlawful?
– Status & the Nationwide Impact of the Rincon Decision
– Won’t You Be My Neighbor? Inter-Local Relations Vis-à-vis Indian Gaming
– State Criminal Jurisdiction in Northwest Indian Casinos
– Federal & State Legalization of Internet Gaming: Are We There Yet?
– Fee-to-Trust Acquisitions for Gaming Purposes

Gabe has co-chaired the event since 2005.

Gabriel “Gabe” Galanda is a partner at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian majority-owned law firm.  He is an enrolled member of the Round Valley Indian Tribes of Covelo, California.  He can be reached at 206.691.3631 or gabe@galandabroadman.com, or via galandabroadman.com.

Make no mistake, tribal sovereignty, and the vast economic benefit it brings to Indian and non-Indian America, is under siege. Non-tribal governments are once again speaking the language of assimilation and termination in an attempt to impede or extract value from any tribal economic endeavor that they perceive does not benefit the non-tribal middle class or private sector. Instead of brute physical force, they now deploy the power to tax, legislate, litigate and otherwise exploit sovereignty-based revenue from everything Indian Country and its tribal middle class have worked so hard to rebuild over the last 200 years.

Indian Country must now recognize this growing state and federal attack for what it is – an attack on Indian sovereignty. Then, only by taking preemptive legal and political steps to expose, confront and countervail those insurgent non-tribal forces that threaten American Indian economies, will we deter the termination of the new tribal middle class.

Gabriel “Gabe” Galanda is a partner at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian majority-owned law firm.  He is an enrolled member of the Round Valley Indian Tribes of Covelo, California.  He can be reached at 206.691.3631 or gabe@galandabroadman.com, or via galandabroadman.com.

Informed by federal “Indian self-determination” policy, in the 1970s Congress began enacting a slew of programs and laws committed to involving Indians in the development and implementation of reservation programs and services. As a result, the economic development of Indian Country finally commenced in earnest. The “distinct legal and economic market opportunities” derived from the “sovereign status of tribes,” as described by Drs. Joseph Kalt and Stephen Cornell, has since played the largest role in evolving the American Indian middle class discussed in Part I, into a reservation-based middle class—into a distinctly tribal middle class.

Gabriel “Gabe” Galanda is a partner at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian majority-owned law firm.  He is an enrolled member of the Round Valley Indian Tribes of Covelo, California.  He can be reached at 206.691.3631 or gabe@galandabroadman.com, or via galandabroadman.com.

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. He can be reached at 206.691.3631 or anthony@galandabroadman.com, or or via galandabroadman.com.

A quick overview of the facts:
– The Torres-Martinez Tribe developed the Red Earth Travel Center on tribal trust lands;
– A Yakama-member-owned business, First American Petroleum, provides tax-free fuel to the Red Earth Travel Center;
– The Torres-Martinez Tribe has delegated certain fuel management authority to First American Petroleum for purpose of obtaining tax-free fuel for the Red Earth Travel Center;
– First American Petroleum transports tax-free fuel to Red Earth Travel Center;
– The Torres-Martinez Tribe “sells fuel and convenience stores items at the travel center to help support the tribal economy”; and
– Ultimately, state fuel or travel-related taxes are not imposed on the Torres-Martinez Tribe or First American Petroleum and those tax savings are passed on to non-Indian patrons of Red Earth Travel Center.

Not only did the District Court hold that fuel or travel-related taxes could not be assessed on First American Petroleum (at least preliminarily) but it acknowledged that the Torres-Martinez Tribe could not be sued for tax collection due to its sovereign immunity. In other words, any California right to collect excise taxes on the fuel sold at the Red Earth Travel Center cannot, as a practical matter, be collected.

The Southern District of California’s decision currently stands as a wonderful affirmation of tax-free inter-tribal commerce.

Gabriel “Gabe” Galanda is a partner at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian majority-owned law firm.  He is an enrolled member of the Round Valley Indian Tribes of Covelo, California.  He can be reached at 206.691.3631 or gabe@galandabroadman.com, or via galandabroadman.com.

No matter what the growing “Occupy Wall Street” movement seeks to accomplish, it has struck a nerve. Members of the American middle class are losing jobs, homes and savings because of the greed and carelessness of “too-big-to-fail” banks. Meanwhile “the country’s six largest financial institutions . . . now have amassed assets equal to more than 60% of our gross domestic product” (The Guardian). That wealth is not trickling down. According to a recent international study, the United States has the fourth highest income inequality rate per capita – trailing only Chile, Mexico and Turkey.

Make no mistake, the American middle class is hurting. Yet while the non-Indian middle class is at least being considered for U.S. governmental support, the tribal middle class – no stranger to the acute pains of economic recession or income inequality – faces rising attack by state and federal government.

Generally speaking, the middle class is comprised of persons with regular, formal employment, a salary and some benefits, and a reasonable amount of discretionary income – in other words, people who are not living hand-to-mouth. As one economist explains, the middle class are “people who are not resigned to a life of poverty, who are prepared to make sacrifices to create a better life for themselves but who have not started with life’s material problems solved because they have material assets to make their lives easy” (The Economist).

While innumerable Indians still live in abject poverty (despite Indian gaming), an increasing number of tribal citizens are now firmly part of the middle class as a result of hard work and sacrifice. This three-part series explores the tribal middle class, beginning below with a discussion of its genesis, which ironically was the result of federal policies that sought to destroy Indian America. Part Two will consider the emergence of a distinctly tribal middle class, including the tribal small business/private sector, as a consequence of Indian self-determination policy. Part Three will examine the rising national attack on the tribal middle class and how Indian Country might countervail that attack.

Gabriel “Gabe” Galanda is a partner at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian majority-owned law firm.  He is an enrolled member of the Round Valley Indian Tribes of Covelo, California.  He can be reached at 206.691.3631 or gabe@galandabroadman.com, or via galandabroadman.com.