NAME:
Brie Coyle – Model Lesson Plan
LESSON:
Civil Jurisdiction in Indian Country
SOURCE:
Adapted from UW Native American Law Student Association’s
Workshop. Brie Coyle created this workshop in its entirety. The
Muckleshoot Tribe donated money for the creation of this workshop.
TIME AND DAY:
75 minute class period
MATERIALS:
Handout:
Handout:
Handout:
Handout:
Handout:
Instruction page
Client Inquiry
Fact Sheet
Legal Research and Legal Reasoning worksheet
Oral Argument Outline (fill in the blank)
I. GOALS
1.
2.
3.
4.
Be able to define “jurisdiction”
Understand tribal sovereignty
Be able to articulate the difference between trial proceedings and appellate proceedings
Understand the relationship between governmental power and citizens’ consent to be
governed
II. OBJECTIVES
1. Knowledge – as a result of this class, students will be better able to:
a. Explain the “Montana” rule and its exceptions for tribal jurisdiction over nonmembers
b. Understand and develop arguments about what constitutes “consent” (test for 1st
exception)
c. Understand and develop arguments about what constitutes “threat to health or
welfare of the tribe” (test for 2nd exception)
d. Understand that legal tests are open to different interpretations and applications
2. Skills – As a result of this class, students will be better able to
a. Develop critical thinking skills through analyzing a hypothetical
b. Identify the key facts in a given case
c. Apply a given legal standard to facts to predict the outcome
d. Identify the reasons for and against a particular outcome in a case
e. Share opinions in a clear, concise, and respectful manner
f. Listen attentively to be able to summarize and report on the arguments made by
others
3. Attitude – as a result of this class, student will be better able to feel:
a. Feel motivated to exercise their voice as citizens
b. Understand how others’ viewpoints are instrumental to the learning process
c. Understand how the law, especially knowledge of jurisdiction, can help us protect
our own rights
d. Respect cultural difference amongst various legal systems
1
III. CLASSROOM METHODS
(This lesson plan presumes that your students have already learned the difference
between civil and criminal jurisdiction. It may be a good idea to do a quick refresher)
A. Introduction: Hypothetical & Basic Definitions
1. Introducing Jurisdiction through the use of hypothetical’s:
a. If you go to Oregon and get a speeding ticket, do you have to pay it? If you break
a law in Italy, do you have to go to Italian jail and work through the Italian legal
system? If you are a Canadian citizen, do you have to obey Washington laws
when you are in Washington?
b. Ask the students how they know which laws apply to them? Is it based purely on
my citizenship (Canadian citizens must obey Canadian laws)? Or, is it also based
on territory (if I’m in Canada then I must obey Canadian laws)?
c. Define Jurisdiction. “Juris” means the law. And “diction” means to speak. So,
jurisdiction means the power to speak the law.
d. Transition into Indian law by discussing how jurisdictional issues arise when nonIndians are on the reservation. Should tribal laws apply to non-Indians when they
are on the reservation? Should non-Indians be subject to the jurisdiction of tribal
court?
2. Tribal Sovereignty Lecture
a. “Indian” is a political status (not a racial identity). Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S.
535 (1974). Indians are citizens of their tribe in the same way that you are
citizens of Washington.
b. Tribes are governments. They enjoy more “sovereignty” (or political
independence) than states but less than a foreign country. This is called
“domestic dependent sovereignty.” However, unlike States and foreign countries,
tribal power is not determined by territory alone. (remind students of
hypothetical) Tribal power, or tribal sovereignty, extends primarily to members
of the tribe. So, the Tulalip Tribe has the power to make laws that govern Tulalip
tribal members/citizens. And, similarly, the Tulalip Tribal Court has jurisdiction
over Tulalip tribal members. Generally, tribal sovereignty does not extend to
non-members (civil cases) or non-Indians (criminal cases).
B. Activity
Explain that the class is going to do an activity that explores a tribe’s civil jurisdiction over a
non-Indian. Divide the students into small groups of 3-4 students. Assign half of the groups to
be attorneys for “Brie” and the other half to represent the RRT Tribe.
1. Client Inquiry
a. Tell the students that their office has received a letter from a potential client.
Distribute the “Client Inquiry” handout.
b. Instruct the students to read over the statements from their clients. Instruct the
students to underline facts that seem important to them.
c. After the students have read the statements, ask attorneys from each group to
identify their “strongest” and “weakest” fact.
2
2. Legal Research & Legal Reasoning
a. Distribute the handout titled “legal research & legal reasoning”
b. Explain that attorneys often do legal research for their clients. This requires
attorneys to read very closely.
c. And, that today the students will need to read the four “case law” excerpts in the
handout. Instruct the students to read the “case law” and synthesize the cases to
formulate the legal “test” (fill in the blank).
d. Go over the answers with the students
i. TEACHER’S ANSWER KEY:
LEGAL TEST
Basic Rule:
Tribal sovereignty gives tribes power
over:
(1) self-government and
(2) the control of internal relations.
The inherent authority of a Tribe does not
extend to:
(1) activities of non-members
(2) if they are on the reservation.
Exceptions:
(1) the non-member consents to
jurisdiction, or
(2) the non-member’s conduct has some
direct effect on the political integrity, the
economic security, or the health or
welfare of the tribe.
3. Legal Reasoning: applying the facts
a. Instruct the students to apply the legal test (as formulated in the handout) to the
facts. They should construct the argument in their clients favor.
b. Walk around as the students are doing this and check in with each group to help
them if they are stuck. Encourage the students come up with reasons to prefer one
case over the other (geographical proximity, date, clarity of rule, court, etc).
c. As you are meeting with the groups, ask them the following questions: how does
control over the state highway hurt or help the tribe control their internal
relations? Is control of the state highway necessary for the tribe to exercise its
right of self-government? Why did the tribe enact this law? Has distracted
driving been a big problem? How does distracted driving threaten the health or
welfare or economic security of the tribe?
3
4. Oral Argument
a. Distribute the “oral argument” workshop.
b. Instruct the students to work with their group to complete the argument outline.
c. Explain that each student will need to “talk” about one point – (1) theme and
facts, (2) reason one, (3) reason two, (4) reason three and conclusion, (5) rebuttal.
d. Petitioner speaks for 4-5 minutes (1 minute per student). Respondent for 4-5
minutes. Then, each side gets a 1 minute rebuttal.
e. TEACHER ANSWER KEY:
Attorneys for Brie (Petitioner)
 The tribe doesn’t have power over Brie because she is not a
member of the tribe
 The tribe doesn’t have power over Brie because she was not on the
reservation at the time of the incident. The State highway is not
critical to tribal self-government or control of internal relations
 The exceptions do not apply in this situation because Brie did not
explicitly consent to jurisdiction and her conduct did not injure
anyone.
 Reverse the 9th Circuit decision
Attorneys for Tribe (Respondent)
 The tribe has jurisdiction under both exceptions:
a. First, Brie impliedly consented to jurisdiction when she
worked for the tribe and established residence on the
reservation.
b. Second, Brie’s conduct threatened the political integrity
and economic security of the tribe.
 The tribe has jurisdiction to control internal relations. And, here,
controlling the state highway that runs through the reservation is
necessary for tribal self-government.
 Affirm 9th Circuit decision
4
C. Class Debrief
Is this a good legal rule?
1. Brie, while enrolled LLM, lived on RRT reservation, worked on the reservation, her
children went to RRT tribal school, and rarely left the RRT reservation? Is it fair for her
to evade all of the RRT laws?
2. What if the rule was the opposite such that anyone who was on the reservation was
subject to the RRT laws. Would this be fair to Brie? Would it be fair to someone who
had no idea she was even driving through the reservation? Is it fair to expect her to
memorize/know the laws of the Tribes and the State of Oregonia?
3. Does this legal rule make sense to you? Why do you think the United State Supreme
Court made this rule? How should courts determine whether or not conduct has some
direct effect?
IV. EVALUATION
1. Active listening and participation during the activity
2. Responses on Legal Reasoning handout and Oral Argument handout
3. Participation in oral argument & class de-brief. Students should be able to clearly and
concisely express their opinions.
5