A federal judge quickly dismissed a lawsuit against one of two groups claiming leadership authority over the Eastern Shoshone Tribe.
In his order, U.S. District Court of Wyoming Judge Scott W. Skavdahl wrote that federal courts don’t have jurisdiction over the dispute, citing case law and federal policy that requires federal courts to “stay their hands” to give tribal courts full opportunity to “first determine their own jurisdiction.”
The lawsuit came as two dueling groups argue they are the rightful Eastern Shoshone Business Council leaders, which has stymied official tribal business for nearly two months. The lawsuit, filed by June “Louise” Tillman, asked the court to remove the original Eastern Shoshone Business Council (OESBC) and to recuse Tribal Judge Hurtado, who is currently overseeing the case in tribal court, in the matter.
“While [Tillman] alleges the tribal court judge suffers from a conflict of interest in the matter,” Judge Skavdahl wrote, “the existence of such a conflict of interest might demand recusal of the judge but it would not strip the tribal court’s jurisdiction over the dispute.”
The stand off
The issue centers around a petitioned general council meeting on Jan. 10, when a quorum of tribal members voted to remove the entire OESBC, then held elections from the floor and elected an new one (NESBC). While organizers of the meeting insisted that the petition procedure was followed, and the meeting notice and agenda were publicized and stamped by the tribe’s attorney general, the OESBC disputed its legality.
After the general council meeting and agenda had been officially posted, the OESBC issued a statement four days before the meeting, alleging certain forms were not provided and the meeting was invalid.
The meeting was still held, and that evening, the OESBC drafted another statement: Proclaiming tribal offices would be shut down “until the non-sanctioned Eastern Shoshone [General] Council meeting actions are resolved through tribal court.”
Documents revealed in the federal suit show another general council meeting was held just two days later. This time, according to a resolution contained in the court filing, 95 enrolled tribal members convened and voted unanimously to “recall/dissolve” the Jan. 10 special emergency general council meeting.
“The January 12 meeting failed all tribal notice requirements – it was not petitioned, and did not invite the full tribal membership, violating the ‘People’s right to voice’ in general council matters, and lacked a legal basis for convening, rendering its outcomes null and void,” the lawsuit claimed. “By holding a meeting on January 12 to ‘rescind’ the January 10 actions, the respondents legally, and implicitly admitted, and acknowledged the January 10 meeting as a valid, binding event and those votes were legally binding,” the lawsuit continued. “One cannot rescind an action that does not legally exist.”
Since that time, the two groups have released limited statements on the matter, both maintaining they are the official elected body. The lawsuit included paperwork documenting a gag order placed on both sides by Tribal Court Judge Hurtado on Feb. 25, and since, both sides have remained silent. The tribal court’s timeline for a resolution in the dispute is unclear.
Someone using the ESBC letterhead posted a public notice on Feb. 18 cancelling two tribal informational meetings and one scheduled general council meeting previously slated for this month, citing “ongoing legal litigation concerning the Eastern Shoshone Tribe.”
This is a developing story; check back for more details as they become available.
Republished with permission from Lander Journal.
