Volume 7: 2006-2007
In this volume of the Tribal Law Journal we highlight the strength, significance, vitality and inventiveness of tribal courts. We feature two works that demonstrate the commitment of tribal courts to the development of tribal common law, albeit in significantly different ways. Along those same lines, we have updated the Tribal Court Handbook information for this volume.
A Restatement Of The Common Law Of The Grand Traverse Band Of Ottawa And Chippewa Indians
By Matthew L.M. Fletcher and Zeke Fletcher, this article sets forth the case law propounded by the Grand Traverse Band Tribal Court. The Grand Traverse Band, with whom the United States concluded two treaties in the 19th Century, only to be denied sovereign status wrongly for over one hundred years, was “re-recognized” by the United States in 1980. The 1988 Grand Traverse Band Constitution established a politically independent Tribal Judiciary that has ruled on a wide spectrum of issues ranging from administrative and constitutional law to fishing and gaming, and from sovereign immunity and tribal economic development to tribal membership. The Restatement distills the principles of the common law of the Grand Traverse Band from well over 75 published opinions, drawing on, interpreting, and complementing the 1988 Constitution and the Grand Traverse Band Code. The authors’ efforts to compile the common law of the Tribal Judiciary will greatly assist members and counsel appearing before the Tribal Court, and in addition will provide helpful guidance and inspiration to the judiciaries of other tribes.
Case Note: Navajo Nation v. Rodriguez and the Traditional Navajo Principle of Hazhó’ógo
In Case Note: Navajo Nation v. Rodriguez and the Traditional Navajo Principle of Hazhó’ógo, Philip Morin examines in detail the adoption, and adaptation, of the United States Supreme Court’s Miranda decision by the Supreme Court of the Navajo Nation. In carrying out the directive of the Fundamental Laws of the Diné, to make Diné bi beehaz’áanii, or Navajo Common Law, the fundamental basis for its decisions, the Supreme Court of the Navajo Nation defined uniquely Navajo rights and procedures governing the custodial interview, holding that the traditional Navajo principle of hazhó’ógo requires truthful, transparent explanations to, and respectful treatment of, persons in police custody. Mr. Morin’s case note goes on to put the Rodriguez opinion into context, demonstrating that the Court’s approach fits squarely into both the Court’s well-established practice of applying traditional Navajo principles to the resolution of legal disputes and the Court’s more recent practice of implementing, wherever appropriate, the directive of the Fundamental Laws of the Diné passed by the Navajo Nation Council in November of 2002.
The Tribal Court Handbook includes updated information for 2007.
As always, we welcome your comments. Please direct them to:
Professor Christine Zuni Cruz, Editor-in-Chief
Tribal Law Journal
University of New Mexico School of Law
1117 Stanford N.E.
MSC11 6070 . 1 University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131-0001
Email: tlj@law.unm.edu
