John v. Baker (1999)

“The determinative factor is whether the matter falls within the ambit of internal self-government.” Id.; John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 752 (Alaska 1999) (“[I]n determining whether tribes retain their sovereign powers, the United States Supreme Court looks to the character of the power that the tribe seeks to exercise, not merely the location of events.”), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1182 , 120 S.Ct. 1221 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1121 (2000).

See id. at 754 ("Although the custody dispute at the center of this case falls outside ICWA's scope, Congress's purpose in enacting ICWA reveals its intent that Alaska Native villages retain their power to adjudicate child custody disputes."). .

John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 765 (Alaska 1999). .

John I, 982 P.2d 738, 743 (Alaska 1999) ("Ms. John is a member of Mentasta Village and Mr. Baker is a member of Northway Village."). 117 .

See John v. Baker, 982 P.2d at 761-62 ("ICWA requires courts to extend full faith and credit to tribal court decisions involving 'child custody proceedings' as that term is defined by [ICWA].").

Id. at 1463 (Stevens, J., concurring). [16] John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 747 (Alaska 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1182 , 120 S.Ct. 1221 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1121 (2000). [17] 25 U.S.C. § 1915 (d). [18] 25 U.S.C. § 1915 (a). [19] See Op. at 1034. [20] One commentator who argues that the prevailing social and cultural standards ought to apply to the good cause inquiry has recognized that the language does not currently support this reading.

John I, 982 P.2d 738, 747 (Alaska 1999) ("Based on this case law, the conclusions of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the purpose of ICWA as expressed in its text and legislative history, we conclude that ICWA does not apply to this inter-parental custody dispute."). 17 . 332 F.3d 574 (9th Cir.2003). 18 .

However, if it were ambiguous, the result reached above would still be mandated by the constructive canon that "[clourts must resolve ambiguities in statutes affecting the rights of Native Americans in favor of Native Americans." John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 752 (Alaska 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1182 , 120 S.Ct. 1221 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1121 (2000). .

NO. 95-1386, at 19 (1978)) (observing that “internal functions involving . . . domestic affairs lie within a tribe’s retained inherent sovereign powers”). 15 Id. at 753-54 ; Native Vill. of Tanana, 249 P.3d at 750 ; Simmonds, 329 P.3d at 1009 . 16 See John I, 982 P.2d at 752 (“[An] express congressional delegation of power is required to sustain tribal power when the tribe has sought to control matters outside the scope of internal governmental authority.”). 17 See Simmonds,…

John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 744 (Alaska 1999) (citing Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281 , 1284 n. 6 (Alaska 1979)). 14 . 289 P.3d 914, 918 (Alaska 2012) (quoting Kaiser v. Umialik Ins., 108 P.3d 876, 879 (Alaska 2005)) (alteration in original). 15 .

The complaint is ambiguous, but because McCrary does not argue on appeal that he brought claims against Shangin in any capacity other than as president of Ivanof Bay, we assume he did not. . 982 P.2d 738, 748-50 (Alaska 1999). .

See John, 982 P.2d at 759 (“Outside Indian country, all disputes arising within the State of Alaska, whether tribal or not, are within the state’s general jurisdiction.

However, if it were ambiguous, the result reached above would still be mandated by the constructive canon that "[c]ourts must resolve ambiguities in statutes affecting the rights of Native Americans in favor of Native Americans." John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 752 (Alaska 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1182 , 120 S.Ct. 1221 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1121 (2000). [18] H.R.Rep.

See John, 982 P.2d at 763 (“Although Indian tribes, as domestic dependent nations, differ from foreign countries, we agree with the Ninth Circuit that comity affords the best ‘analytical framework for recognizing tribal judgments.’”) (quoting Wilson, 127 F.3d at 810 ); Coeur d’Alene Tribe v. Johnson, 405 P.3d 13, 21 (Idaho 2017); see also Tracy v. Superior Ct. of Maricopa Cnty., 810 P.2d 1030, 1041 (Ariz. 1991) (en banc) (citing several Arizona decisions recognizing Navajo t…

Although ICWA itself does not define what constitutes “good cause” to deny a transfer petition, in 2016 the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) enacted binding regulations to guide state courts in this determination.29 The regulations expressly prohibit state courts from considering certain factors when deciding whether good cause exists to 24 Id. § 1911(b). 25 In re C.R.H., 29 P.3d 849 , 853 n.16 (Alaska 2001) (emphasis in original) (quoting Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v…

IV, § 1 (“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”). 4 982 P.2d 738, 760 (Alaska 1999).

To determine whether tribes retain their sovereign powers, we must "look[ ] to the character of the power that the tribe seeks to exercise, not merely the location of events." John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 752 (Alaska 1999).

To determine whether tribes retain their sovereign powers, we must "look[] to the character of the power that the tribe seeks to exercise, not merely the location of events." John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 752 (Alaska 1999).

John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 749-50, 762-63 (Alaska 1999). [52] See State, Dep'ts of Transp. & Labor v. Enserch Alaska Constr., Inc., 787 P.2d 624, 634 (Alaska 1989); see also Lynden Transport, Inc. v. State, 532 P.2d 700, 708-10 (Alaska 1975). [53] We emphasize that the borough has not attempted to defend its ordinance as an affirmative action measure necessary to remedy a historical imbalance attributable to discriminatory hiring.

City of North Pole v. Zabek, 934 P.2d 1292, 1297 (Alaska 1997); Walker v. Walker, 960 P.2d 620, 622 (Alaska 1998). 8 . 982 P.2d 738, 763 (Alaska 1999). 9 .

McKinley Bank, 322 P.3d 866, 875 (Alaska 2014) (concluding "the tribal election and membership dispute" is a matter "within the A-1389-25 11 'tribe's retained inherent sovereign powers'" (quoting John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 751 (1999))); State v. Bellcourt, 937 N.W.2d 160 , 171 (Minn. Ct. App. 2019) ("Minnesota state courts should [not] intervene in a matter of internal tribal governance." (alteration in original)); Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe of Indians v. Town of Southbu…

McKinley Bank, 322 P.3d 866, 871 (Alaska 2014) (quoting John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 744 (Alaska 1999)). 21 State v. Recall Dunleavy, 491 P.3d 343, 367 (Alaska 2021) (alteration in original) (quoting Jones v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 441 P.3d 966, 981 (Alaska 2019)). 22 Id. (quoting Alaska Pub.

McKinley Bank, 322 P.3d 866, 871 (Alaska 2014) (quoting John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 744 (Alaska 1999)). 5 Hawkins, 322 P.3d at 894 (quoting Nw.

C.R. v. Native Vill. of Selawik, 2023 WL 3764599 , at *8 (emphasis added) (citing John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 758 (Alaska 1999).

State courts may recognize foreign divorces under the principal of comity, which applies when “the courts of one state or jurisdiction . . . give effect to the laws and judicial decisions of another state or jurisdiction, not as a matter of obligation, but out of deference and mutual respect.” John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 762 (Alaska 1999) (quoting Brown v. Babbitt Ford, Inc., 571 P.2d 689, 695 (Ariz. 1977)).

Petitioner’s own allegations and cited evidence show that the Tribal Court exists, that she participated in its proceedings, and that she appealed to it for relief until she was dissatisfied with the outcome. 94 See Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 , 71–72 (1978). 95 See also John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 758 (Alaska 1999) (quoting Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 564 (1981)) (holding that Alaska Native tribes have inherent, non-territorial sovereignty over …

The superior court did not err in concluding that a tribe’s 14 Id. 15 Id. 16 See Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 564 (1981); Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 55 (1978); Roff v. Burney, 168 U.S. 218, 222 (1897). 17 982 P.2d 738, 751 (Alaska 1999) (citing United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 326 (1978); Montana, 450 U.S. at 564 ). 18 Id. (quoting Ollestead v. Native Vill. of Tyonek, 560 P.2d 31, 33 (Alaska 1977)). -9- 7628 membership determinations are f…

To the extent that there is any ambiguity about whether the list is exclusive, we reiterate that Supreme Court precedent directs that we “must resolve ambiguities in statutes affecting the rights of Native Americans in favor of Native Americans.” John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 752-53 (Alaska 1999) (citing Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373, 392 (1976)). 63 BIA Commentary, supra note 19, at 38,830. 64 See In re April S., 467 P.3d 1091, 1100 , 1100 n.3 (Winfree, J., concurring…

There is no mention of Indian Tribes anywhere in the PKPA, and no evidence in the PKPA’s legislative history that Congress considered whether the statute would apply to tribes and tribal courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1738A; Garcia v. Gutierrez, 217 P.3d 591, 604 (N.M. 2009); John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 762 (Alaska 1999); In re Marriage of Susan C. & Sam E., 60 P.3d 644, 648-49 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).

Background: the Metlakatla Indian Community The Metlakatla Indian Community is a federally recognized tribe located on the only existing Indian reservation in Alaska.1 Its Alaskan roots date from 1887, when about 800 citizens of the Tsimshian Nation migrated from British Columbia to the 1 See John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 750 (Alaska 1999) (explaining that “federal recognition ‘institutionalizes the tribe’s quasi-sovereign status’ ” and “permanently establishes a government-t…

The superior court concluded that NVB’s request was untimely and that the superior court lost jurisdiction when Amanda filed an appeal a few 23 Jackson, 315 P.3d at 678 . 24 25 U.S.C. § 1911 (a). 25 25 U.S.C. § 1903 (1)(i). 26 25 U.S.C. § 1903 (1)(iv). 27 John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 746-47 (Alaska 1999). 28 Id. at 747 . -18- 7431 days after NVB’s motion was filed.

Cf John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 811 (Alaska 1999) ("In determining a statute's meaning, courts will defer to the contemporaneous construction of the statute given by an agency charged with its administration.

Id. (quoting John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 744 (Alaska 1999)). 8 .

We will adopt the most persuasive rule of law in light of precedent, reason, and policy.”12 “This 7 Id. (quoting John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 744 (Alaska 1999)). 8 Larsen v. Municipality of Anchorage, 993 P.2d 428, 431 (Alaska 1999); see also Alaska Hous.

Alexander v. Coxe, 295 P.3d 380, 386 (Alaska 2013) (citing State v. Native Vill. of Tanana, 249 P.3d 734, 737 (Alaska 2011); John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 744 (Alaska 1999)) (applying our independent judgment to interpretation of a federal statute). 8 . 319 U.S. 561, 575 , 63 S.Ct. 1223 , 87 L.Ed. 1587 (1943); see also Shelor v. Shelor, 259 Ga. 462 , 383 S.E.2d 895, 896 (1989) ("A trial court has a large degree of discretion in determining whether to grant a stay under the [S…

State v. Native Vill. of Tanana, 249 P.3d 734, 737 (Alaska 2011); John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 744 (Alaska 1999) (citing In re T.N.F., 781 P.2d 973, 975 (Alaska 1989)). 7 . 15 U.S.C. § 7901 . 8 . 15 U.S.C. § 7902 (a). 9 . 15 U.S.C. § 7903 (5)(A). 10 . 15 U.S.C. § 11 . 15 U.S.C. § 7901 (a)(6). 12 . 15 U.S.C. § 7901 (b)(1). 13 .

John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 748 (Alaska 1999) (citing Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Gov't, 522 U.S. 520 , 118 S.Ct. 948 , 140 L.Ed.2d 30 (1998)) (internal citations omitted). 8 .

John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 750 (Alaska 1999). 35 .

John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 759 (Alaska 1999). .

John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 793-94 (Alaska 1999), quoting Hanebuth v. Bell Helicopter Internat'l, 694 P.2d 143, 146 (Alaska 1984). 8 .

John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 751 (Alaska 1999) (citation omitted).

See John, 982 P.2d at 759 ; In re Marriage of Skillen, 287 Mont. 399 , 956 P.2d 1, 18 (1998). {64} We acknowledge that concurrent jurisdiction runs counter to the purpose of both the UCCJEA and the PKPA, but for the reasons explained above, neither of those statutes can bind the tribal court in this case to give full faith and credit to the state court’s exercise of jurisdiction.

See John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738 , 746 n. 28 (Alaska 1999). [27] Renwick v. State, Bd. of Marine Pilots, 971 P.2d 631, 634 (Alaska 1999); see also Jackinsky v. Jackinsky, 894 P.2d 650, 654 (Alaska 1995). [28] See Diedrich v. City of Ketchikan, 805 P.2d 362, 369-70 (Alaska 1991); see also Johnson v. Alaska State Dep't of Fish & Game, 836 P.2d 896, 908-09 (Alaska 1991). [29] This analysis would not apply if the amount at stake in the present case differed substantially from tha…

See, e.g. , John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738 , 747 (Alaska 1999).

Aleman , 485 F.3d at 213 ; see also John v. Baker , 982 P.2d 738 , 753 (Alaska 1999) (concluding that Congress did not intend ANCSA to "handicap tribes by divesting them of their sovereign powers").

See also John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 750 (Alaska 1999) (deferring to the federal government in recognizing the sovereignty of tribes who appear on the federal list); 25 *1177 U.S.C.A. §§ 5130, 5131 (West Supp. 2017) (authorizing annual publication of the list); Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 82 Fed.

ICWA does not apply in custody disputes between parents. 25 U.S.C. § 1903 (1) (divorce exception); see also John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 747 (Alaska 1999) (excluding disputes between unmarried parents). 15 .

See John v. Baker (John I), 982 P.2d 738, 746-47 (Alaska 1999) (noting that "Congress stated that the statute’s dual purpose was 'to protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stabilhy and security of Indian tribes and families.’ ” (quoting 25 U.S.C. § 1902 )). 9 .

NOTES [1] Bennett v. Bennett, 6 P.3d 724, 726 (Alaska 2000). [2] Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515, 559 , 6 Pet. 515 , 8 L.Ed. 483 (1832); see also United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 381-82 , 6 S.Ct. 1109 , 30 L.Ed. 228 (1886). [3] John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 751 (Alaska 1999) (citation omitted).

See John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 743 (Alaska 1999) (applying independent judgment to decide legal questions such as scope of tribal court subject matter jurisdiction and meaning of federal statute). 9 .