Winter 1999

judge

Native American Legal Briefs

Schaghticokes Ask For Federal Acknowledgment in Federal District Court

Tribal Courts Must Be Allowed to Hear Lawsuits First When a Case is Filed In Both Tribal and State Courts

Schaghticokes Ask For Federal Acknowledgment in Federal District Court

The Schaghticoke Tribal Nation is involved in two cases in federal district court in Connecticut. As part of those cases, the Tribe has asked the court to decide whether the Tribe is entitled to Federal Acknowledgement. If the court agrees to make that decision, the Tribe would no longer be required to go through the lengthy Acknowledgement proceeding with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BAR). (For a general description of the Acknowledgement process, please see the Quinnehtukqut Legal News, Volume 2, Issue 1 )

The first case was filed in 1985 by the United States government. It is a condemnation proceeding to get land from the Tribe to be used for the Appalachian Trail. The Tribe believes that allowing the condemnation action would take additional land from the Tribe's already small Reservation, would threaten one of the few rattlesnake dens remaining in Connecticut, and would violate the 1790 Non-Intercourse Act. The judge in that case has stated that, if the Tribe were entitled to federal acknowledgement, the U.S. Government could not condemn the land. Because the question of acknowledgement has not yet been decided by BAR, the judge "stayed" the action in this case. Therefore, the case will not be decided until the acknowledgement question is settled.

The second case was filed earlier this year by the Schaghticokes. It asks the court to restore about 1,900 acres of land to the Tribe. The Tribe believes that the land was improperly transferred from the Tribe under the Non-Intercourse Act.

The Tribe has asked the judge to consolidate these two cases, which both involve the question of the Tribe's federal status, and to decide the question of status. The Tribe argues that, unless the judge decides the Tribe's status, these two cases will not be decided for many years to come. A ruling on whether the judge will decide the Tribe's status is expected in the near future.

Tribal Courts Must Be Allowed to Hear Lawsuits First When a Case is Filed In Both Tribal and State Courts

In July of 1998, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that lawsuits filed in both State and Indian Tribal Courts must be heard in Tribal Court first. The case involved issues that had never been raised before in Connecticut.

In 1996, two state police officers assigned to the Foxwoods Casino and a former security employee of the casino filed a lawsuit in Connecticut Superior Court against the senior officers of the casino and the Chairman of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Council. The three plaintiffs claimed that they had been investigating possible criminal activities at the casino. They claimed, among other things, that they were then falsely and publicly accused by the casino executives of breaking the law themselves. As a result, they claim, the two police officers were reassigned and the security officer was fired.

The Superior Court dismissed the lawsuit. The judge found that the three plaintiffs had "failed to exhaust their tribal remedies," even though no tribal remedies had been asked for at the time. The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the Connecticut Supreme Court. At that point in time, however, the two police officers also filed a suit in the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Court. Mr. Maranda, the former security officer, did not join in that suit.

The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court. Since Mr. Maranda never filed anything in Tribal Court, his case was sent back to the Superior Court for trial. However, the case filed by the two police officers in Tribal Court involved basically the same issues raised in Superior Court, as well as basically the same parties. Therefore, the Court decided, they should go forward in Tribal Court before being allowed to continue in State Court. The Court ordered that the suit in the Superior Court be "stayed".

In reaching its decision, the Court relied on a number of United States Supreme Court decisions. Those cases discussed a principle called "exhaustion of tribal remedies". The U. S. Supreme Court decisions pointed out that there is a federal policy supporting tribal self-government and self-determination. They noted that tribal courts play a vital role in tribal self-government. Moreover, direct competition between the federal courts and tribal courts would interfere with a Tribe's authority over reservation affairs.

The Connecticut Supreme Court decided that direct competition from state courts was just as likely to disrupt tribal self-government and self-determination. Therefore, since the two police officers had filed a case in Tribal Court, they needed to try that case first.

With respect to Mr. Maranda, however, no suit had been brought in Tribal Court that involved him. The Court found that the policy against interfering with tribal court proceedings did not apply in that circumstance. Therefore, the principle of exhaustion of tribal remedies did not apply.