National Tribal Justice Resource Center

Legal Issues

Alcohol & Drug

Child Support

Criminal Law

Domestic Violence

Environmental Law

Gaming Law

ICWA

Indian Civil Rights

Intergovt Agreements

Juvenile Justice

Land and Housing Law

Supreme Court Decisions

Tribal Court Opinions

US Laws

VAWA

Victims Services

Search the Website

NAICJA Special Meeting
on Sovereignty Protection Initiative Legislation

Message from the President of NAICJA
Eugene Whitefish, Forrest County Potawatomi

When the U.S. Supreme Court decided Hicks and Atkinson, now more than a year ago, Tribal Court Judges let out a collective gasp. The idea that Indian Country generally, and Tribal Courts, specifically, could not or should not be responsible for actions within their jurisdictions constitutes an unprecedented form of sovereignty diminishment. Something had to be done. But what?

Thankfully, Indian Country and the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) has responded. A Committee was formed which spent the past year formulating a coherent Tribal response to Hicks and Atkinson. Several meetings with Tribal representatives, from across the Country were held during which testimony was taken regarding the positions of Tribes. As could be expected, Tribes have not agreed on the best course of action to take. But, a consensus of sorts is being achieved on drafting federal legislation to remedy the rulings of Hicks and Atkinson. This is referred to as the Sovereignty Protection Initiative.

One of the outstanding questions has been; where do Tribal Court judges stand on this issue? And� as President of the National American Indian Court Judges Association, I believe this is a good question.

Tribal Court Judges, like all Judges, tend to resist political or policy questions. These questions all too often can end up in Court. It would be unseemly (if not unethical) for a Judge to comment for the public record one day and in Court the next, on the same matter. This ethical dilemma is a concern for all tribal court judges. This matter, however, begs to be distinguished from most judicial ethical issues. The collective expression of Tribal Court judges regarding this matter through NAICJA is integral, not just to the political question of Tribal Court jurisdiction, but to the very existence of Tribal Courts. No individual judge need comment but only through the collective voice of NAICJA and NCAI and maintain the ethics of his/her office.

At our NAICJA Annual Conference, in September, at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, NAICJA for the first time, considered these important questions. How do we address the misconceptions behind Hicks and Atkinson? Should Tribes consider federal legislation on this matter? What is the downside or political trade-off for passage of such legislation? Is such legislation even possible? There were too many questions, and too many varied opinions, to answer at the NAICJA Annual Conference. In conference evaluations, NAICJA membership asked for additional time to comment and, for the first time, formulate an organizational position on this complex issue.

So� in response, NAICJA announces a special meeting for all Tribal Courts and judges to learn more and to help develop positions on the issues relating to the Sovereignty Initiative Protection legislation being proposed. The meeting will be in Phoenix, AZ on January 23-24, 2003. All Tribal Court personnel and representatives are invited, whether you are a NAICJA member or not; whether you are a judge or not; so long as you can express the interests of a Tribal Court. This issue is larger than any Tribal organization and all comments are viewed as valuable.

Visit our websites, www.naicja.org or www.ntjrc.org or contact Chuck Robertson, NAICJA Executive Director (605-342-4804) for additional information. This is a very important matter. We hope you can attend and make the voices of yourself and your Tribal Court heard. Megwech.

President Eugene Whitefish.