Perryville V. Tague

Case Issues

Whether a Federally recognized Tribal Court’s order, banishing a tribal member from a Native Village is enforceable?

If the Order is enforceable, can the Tribe obtain law enforcement assistance, with or without a state court order?

Location Map

Perryville

Perryville

1997 Mr. Tague is removed from Village by Alaska State Troopers after assaultive behavior 1998 Mr Tague is permitted to return, upon promise by partner and partner's grandfather to be responsible 1998 Mr Tague's initial banishment Jan ??, 1999 Mr. Tague assaults numerous members of the village Jan 1997 Feb 1997 Jan 1998 Feb 1998 Jan 1999 Timeline of Events

Jan ??, 1999 Mr. Tague assaults numerous members of the village Mar 25, 1999 After a hearing, the Perryville Council, sitting as the Tribal Court, issues an order banning Mr. tague from returning to Perryville. May ??, 1999 John Tague is sentenced, and at sentencing, Assistant District Attorney Skidmore advises J. Torissi of Perryville banishment order Jan 1999 Feb 1999 Mar 1999 Apr 1999 May 1999 Timeline of Events

May ??, 1999 John Tague is sentenced, and at sentencing, Assistant District Attorney Skidmore advises J. Torissi of Perryville banishment order Timeline of Events Nov 17, 2000 Perryville files suit in Superior Court, Anchorage, seeking to enforce its order via a permanent injunction Dec ??, 2000 Federal Violence Against Women's Act amendments recognizing Tribal court jurisdiction over offenses occurring on "Indian Lands" Nov 2000 Dec 2000 Jan 2001 Feb 2001

Timeline of Events Mar 2001 Mar 10, 2001 Court enters injunction against Mr. Tague, in effect enforcing the Tribal order Jan 9, 2003 1.Mr. Tague is reported to be aboard a flight to Perryville; 2. Trooper Holmes also aboard the flight 3. Upon arrival in Perryville, Trooper Holmes is informed of the injunction and tribal court order, and superiors inform him that further court orders are required Jan 2003 Jan 10, 2003 1. J. Michalski issues writ of assistance 2. Trooper advised by Department of Law to enforce writ 3. Writ served on Mr. Tague Jan 11, 2003 The village pays Mr. Tague's way out, and Mr. Tague departs Perryville. Feb 2003 Mar 2003 Mar 25, 2003 Court issues order to Perryville to show cause why the 2000 injunction and Jan. 2003 Writ of Assistance should not be dissolved

Timeline of Events Mar 18, 2003 Department of Law writes to J. Michalski, asserting that the injunction is void and asserting that the Troopers "believe it is not appropriate for them to become instruments of tribal banishment...." May 7, 2003 Mar 25, 2003 Perryville Tribal Court hearing; Mr. Tague appeared, acknowledged authority of Tribe to exclude him from the village Court issues order to Perryville to show cause why the 2000 injunction and Jan. 2003 Writ of Assistance should not be dissolved Nov 19, 2003 J. Michalski's order issues, affirming injunctive relief, writ of assistance and a Native Village's authority over its members Apr 2003 May 2003 Nov 2003

The State’s Position

• • • • An Alaska Native Tribe without “Indian Country” lacks sovereign territory, and hence the ability to banish members from the Village.

The Court’s Writ of Assistance, in effect requiring the State Troopers to enforce the banishment, violated the Doctrine of Separation of Powers.

VAWA did not Apply Due Process was not provided

NVP’s Position

1.

2.

3.

4.

NVP, as a federally recognized Tribe, has jurisdiction to regulate the the internal affairs of its members.

The Superior Court is required to give comity to the lawful orders of the NVP Tribal Court An order of the NVP Tribal Court, lawfully issued following notice and an opportunity to be heard, regarding whether a tribal member may continue to reside in the village, is entitled to comity The Alaska State Troopers are required to enforce the lawful orders of the NVP Court and writs issued by the Superior Court in aid of Tribal Court Orders

1.

2.

3.

4.

The Superior Court’s Holding Order in Case 3 AN-00-12245 CI

“ The law allows tribes to ‘regulate the internal affairs of its members.” id at.4.

The NVP order was limited to Perryville: “Here the people of Perryville simply want Mr. Tague to stay away from tribal members in Perryville.” Id at 7. Due process was not offended; Mr. Tague received actual notice of the NVP order at his sentencing, constructive notice through publication, and additional notice and a hearing in May 2003 in Perryville. Id. At 5 The order is not permanent; Mr. Tague may seek relief from either NVP’s tribal court, or the Superior Court.

Procedure

• Tribal Court: See 25 U.S.C. § 3601, Indian Tribal Justice Support Act (“Indian tribes possess inherent powers to establish their own form of government, including tribal justice systems.”) • Provide notice of what the allegations are, what the individual may expect as a sanction, and where to appear for a hearing • The hearing should be held on the record, that is, it should be recorded

Underlying Premise (VOWA)

18 U.S.C. § 2265(a) provides: Any protection order issued that is consistent with subsection (b) of this section by the court of one’s state or Indian tribe (the issuing state or Indian tribe) shall be accorded full faith and credit by the court of another state or Indian Tribe (the enforcing state or Indian tribe) and enforced as if it were the order of the enforcing state or tribe.