Gabe Galanda Encourages Indian Country to Utilize the UN Indigenous Rights Declaration in Domestic Struggle Against the United States

Gabe Galanda has published “Deploying the U.N. Indigenous Rights Declaration in the Courts of the Conqueror” in Indian Country Today. He explains:

On December 16, 2010, with much pomp and circumstance before American tribal leaders, President Obama endorsed the Declaration, explaining to the tribal leaders who had gathered in Washington, D.C.:

“The aspirations it affirms—including the respect for the institutions and rich cultures of Native peoples—are one we must always seek to fulfill…. I want to be clear: What matters far more than words—what matters far more than any resolution or declaration—are actions to match those words.”

Yet in action, the departments, agencies, and officials within the Obama Administration do not actually live up to the words contained in the Declaration. To the contrary, federal actions too frequently contradict the promises made by the United States to American Indian indigenous people in the Declaration. As United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples S. James Anaya has noted, it is one thing for governments to “incorporate the norms concerning indigenous peoples; it is quite another thing for the norms to take effect in the actual lives of people.”

After explaining how the Declaration might hold in United States courts, Gabe concludes: "Despite federal contention otherwise, the Declaration is not toothless. Indian country should deploy the Declaration and its embodiment of customary international law in domestic courts when necessary to defend against federal behavior that threatens American indigenous ways of life."

Gabriel "Gabe" Galanda is a partner at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian owned law firm.  He is an enrolled member of the Round Valley Indian Tribes of Covelo, California.  Gabe represents tribes and individual Indians in all matters of controversy with federal, state or local governments. He can be reached at 206.691.3631 or gabe@galandabroadman.com.

Turtle Talk Publishes Seattle Tribal Lawyer Ryan Dreveskracht's “Keeping Tribal Business Partners Close – and Their Lawyers Closer”

Ryan Dreveskracht's occasional paper, “Keeping Tribal Business Partners Close – and Their Lawyers Closer,” was published today by Turtle Talk, the leading blog on issues of federal Indian and tribal law, with the following editorial comment from Professor Matthew Fletcher.

I’m largely in agreement with Dreveskracht. When I started practicing in the 1990s, senior attorneys counseled me to draft contract language that would facilitate these kinds of traps. One example involved a private vendor that refused to adjudicate disputes in tribal court, insisting on state court jurisdiction and governing law. We negotiated for federal court review as a “compromise.” Of course, there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction over contract claims just because one of the parties is an Indian tribe. In California especially, cases started coming out in the 2000s where federal court judges were forced to dismiss contract claims, but the federal judges openly criticized tribal lawyers for negotiating those provisions. They frankly are borderline unethical, and may implicate professional responsibility canons.

Business partners are partners before they are adversaries, and tribal businesses depend on goodwill of their own businesses and those of other tribes to create a groundwork for doing business with non-Indian entities. It seems reasonable to rethink the arms-length negotiations strategies in at least some contracts. It may be a difficult pill to swallow for tribal lawyers. Well, face it, most just won’t do it. Lawyers are trained in an adversarial process, and always lean toward strictly assessing risk. Maybe that’s why lawyers are such lousy business people.

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.

Amend IRA Section 17 To Allow Federal Incorporation For Tribal Members

Tribal entrepreneurs frequently have only one avenue to charter a business, be it a sole proprietorship, corporation or limited liability company: state incorporation. That is because many tribal governments still do not have business structures laws or incorporation regimes in place. The problem with state incorporation of a tribal member-owned business, though, is that a state charter is the first thing a state tax collector will cite when attempting to tax the business.  An Indian business' state incorporation should not matter. The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the notion that state taxation arises from the form in which a tribal party chooses to conduct its business. Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145, 157 n.13 (1972). In Pourier v. South Dakota Dept. of Revenue, 658 N.W.2d 395, 405 (2003), a state supreme court explained:

Congress’ primary objective in Indian law for several decades has been to encourage tribal economic independence and development. By finding that incorporation under state law deprives a business of its Indian identity, we would force economic developers on reservations to forgo the benefits of incorporation in order to maintain their guaranteed protections under federal Indian law. This could hinder economic development.

State taxation or other regulation of tribal member businesses most certainly hinders -- it is in fact anathema to -- Indian economic development. Again, though, an Indian's state business charter becomes the proverbial Exhibit A in a state's case to tax or otherwise regulate the business.  In fact, it may be all a state tax collector needs to assess the Indian business, deferring the (il)legalities until later, meaning when the business will find itself enmeshed in a costly tax litigation battle.

Section 17 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. § 461 et seq. (1934), provides that “[t]he Secretary of the Interior may, upon petition by any tribe, issue a charter of incorporation to such tribe . . . .” 25 U.S.C. § 477. Although the title of the IRA states that the statute was intended “to extend to Indians the right to form business and other organizations” (48 Stat. 984), and Section 19 defines an “Indian” as “all persons of Indian descent who are members of any recognized tribe now under Federal jurisdiction" (25 U.S.C. § 479), Interior takes the position that Section 17 itself mandates that charters only be issued to a “tribe” and not any tribal member.

That position, though technically correct perhaps, is myopic. It remains Congress’ primary objective relative to Indian Country to encourage tribal economic independence and development (at least on paper). As such, the Obama Administration, especially given its current campaign to protect the American middle class, should support legislation that would allow tribal member entrepreneurs to incorporate, while maintaining their guaranteed protections under federal Indian law to be free of state interference.

A narrow amendment to Section 17 that would allow Indian persons to federally charter businesses in fulfillment of the law's expressed intent, rather than incorporate under state law and thereby risk destruction via state taxation and other regulation -- yes, certainly easier said than done in this political moment -- should be proposed by the Obama Administration and considered by the Congress.

Gabriel "Gabe" Galanda is a partner at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian 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.