Skip to content
Back to top

Legislation/Policy/Procedure

Title: A Legacy of Public Law 280: Comparing and Contrasting Minnesota’s New Rule for the Recognition of Tribal Court Judgments with the Recent Arizona Rule by Kevin K. Washburn and Chloe Thompson
Parties: Minnesota tribal courts, Minnesota courts
Date enacted/published: 2004

Description:

A Legacy of Public Law 280: Comparing and Contrasting Minnesota’s New Rule for the Recognition of Tribal Court Judgments with the Recent Arizona Rule by Kevin K. Washburn and Chloe Thompson, Vol. 31, Issue 2, Article 5, William Mitchell Law Review 2004. The article provides a history of the tribal/state court forums in Arizona and in Minnesota. It contrast the rules adopted in each state involving the recognition of tribal court judgments and contemplates why such different rules were adopted. It concludes that the impact of P.L. 280 on the relationship between state and tribes had a major impact on the resulting rule in Minnesota and that the strong leadership in the Arizona Supreme Court impacted the adoption there.

For additional information contact:
Kevin K. Washburn
Dean, School of Law
University of New Mexico
washburn@law.umn.edu
Title: Full Faith and Credit and Cooperation between State and Tribal Courts: Catching Up to the Law by Paul Stenzel, Journal of Court Innovation, Vol. 2, No. 2, Fall 2009.
Date enacted/published: 2009

Description:

Article from the Journal of Court Innovation, which provides some history of state and tribal court relationships and discusses full faith and credit. It specifically refers to statutes and protocols in Wisconsin, New York, New Mexico, and Minnesota and provides case examples.

For additional information contact:
Paul W. Stenzel
paul@paulstenzel.com
Title: Supreme Court Rule Recognizing Tribal Court Orders
Date enacted/published: July 2. 2018

Description:

The Minnesota Tribal Court/State Court Forum had previously petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court to adopt a robust rule for recognition of tribal court orders. Due in large part to public concern about the efficacy of tribal courts, the supreme court adopted a more cautious rule, one that provided limited guidance and delegated excessive discretion to district courts. The consequences were delays and inconsistencies in the recognition process.

In 2016, the Forum petitioned the supreme court to amend the rule, arguing that any concerns about today’s tribal courts are unfounded. It asked the Minnesota Supreme Court to enhance the rule and extend due deference and respect to tribal courts. The petition received overwhelming support from state court judges, local attorney associations, and the national Indian law community. In a 4-2 decision on July 2, 2018, the Minnesota Supreme Court granted the Forum’s petition with minor amendments.