I've read this opinion twice, and am still a little confused about what Justice Robie is saying on one of the central points. But maybe it's just me.
There's a hotly contested election in an Indian tribe and Angela Martin gets elected chairperson, but her opponents win the lower level tribal elections. Shades of January 6, there's then an "occupation" of a medical office owned by the tribe (on off-reservation land) by one of the parties. Resulting in a big fight when one side is ordered to leave, refuses, etc. The typical stuff, except it's an office building instead of the Capitol. (Justice Robie doesn't make the January 6 analogy; that's all me, but it seems to fit.)
So then, the lower level officials call an impromptu meeting (without notifying Martin) and purport to replace her with someone else. Then there's a lawsuit filed by the tribe against the occupiers, claiming trespass and requesting an injunction. To figure out whether there's been a trespass, everyone agrees that you have to decide whether Martin is still the head of the tribe; she says she is, the other side says that she isn't.
The trial court ultimately decides it's not allowed to intervene in this intratribal dispute about who's validly the head of the tribe, so dismisses the suit. The Court of Appeal reverses.
All that I understand. At least factually.
Here's the part that I keep tripping over. Justice Robie holds (in Section B) that "there is no tribal leadership dispute" because Martin was removed by the lower tribal officials in a meeting and since then she has not "challenged her suspension pursuant to Greenville law or by filing an administrative action with the Bureau." At the same time, Justice Robie admits that "[t]he parties agree Martin was elected as Greenville’s chairperson and that the rest of the tribal council passed, either validly or invalidly, resolutions to suspend her authority and order defendants to vacate the property."
That sort of sounds like an active leadership dispute to me, no? Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe I need to learn more about the relevant constitution of the Greenville Rancharia, but if Martin says that she was not validly removed from her leadership position, then isn't that an active dispute, even if she doesn't file a petition?
Imagine, for example, that on January 4, Vice President Pence met with the cabinet and declared in a press conference that then-President Trump was "insane" and no longer capable of being President, so Pence took over and ordered Trump out of the White House. In response, President Trump said: "No, I'm not insane, and while I might not be the brightest bulb in the pack, I read the thing and am pretty sure the 25th Amendment says you have to submit a written declaration to Congress to remove me, not just hold a press conference, so bully for you, I'm not leaving." The "United States" then files suit to evict Trump and his family from the White House.
It seems to me that's a leadership dispute, and that that's true even if President Trump hadn't formally challenged his suspension in court or filed any other sort of petition -- exactly like Martin here. He and Martin can both just say -- as Martin apparently is -- "I don't care what you say or did, it's not valid, so I'm still in office."
For Indian tribes, state courts aren't allowed (as Justice Robie notes) to look at the tribal constitution or anything like that to interpret who's right and who's still in power. That's why the trial court thought it had to dismiss the lawsuit.
So if Martin is still claiming that she's in officer -- which it seems she clearly is -- I'm not exactly sure why a formal "protest" of any type is required.
Now, maybe there's something in the tribal constitution that says that once a resolution is passed, the chairperson is required to file a petition or something like that. But if so, there's nothing in the opinion that says anything like that. Plus, even if there was, would Martin really have to follow it? Couldn't she just say (as she apparently is) "Well, the meeting that kicked me out was invalid, because there was no notice of it, so I don't have to do anything." Which is just what Trump might say, for example, if the cabinet meeting in the above hypothetical was only attended by five cabinet members. (The 25th Amendment requires a majority of the cabinet to agree that the President is disabled.) I guess that he could go ahead and fight the thing in Congress (or court) pursuant to the procedures applicable when a majority of the cabinet does vote that he's disabled. But it also seems to me like he could just ignore the thing and pretend it didn't happen. In the same way that he'd ignore the thing if, say, a random guy on the street assembled 24 other random guys, called themselves the "Legitimate Vice President and Cabinet," and voted to remove President Trump from office. Yeah, go right ahead. That sound you hear is crickets. The fact that the White House doesn't file a petition in Congress doesn't mean that there's no leadership dispute and President Trump admits that he's been (allegedly invalidly) kicked out.
All of which is a longwinded way of saying that I'd want to hear more on this front. Because facially, I'm pretty sure that there is, in fact, a leadership dispute here. So I'd want to know more about why there is allegedly no "real" leadership dispute, especially since state courts aren't allowed to adjudicate the internal rules of an Indian tribe and who's right on the merits.
