"We have no doubt the election was a sham," said Michelle Roberts, a tribal citizen who serves as a spokesperson for fellow Nooksack who have repeatedly clashed with the disputed leaders.
Those leaders include Robert Kelly, who has been recognized as a "person of authority" by the BIA in order for the tribe to continue receiving millions of dollars in federal funds and in order for the tribe to maintain its government-to-government relationship with the United States. He happens to be the lead defendant in the lawsuit. Kelly has served as chairman throughout the saga, which has attracted national attention. His seat is supposed to be among those on an upcoming March 17 ballot , according to the tribe's elections office. As the judge noted, the outcome of the upcoming election, along with the results of the December vote, could affect the lawsuit, known as Rabang v. Kelly. The lawsuit is unique in that it doesn't directly involve the tribe. Instead, the Nooksack plaintiffs have invoked the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act -- a federal law that is commonly used to break up criminal entities -- in an attempt to hold Kelly and his allies on the council accountable for their actions. Kelly sought dismissal of the case, citing the tribe's sovereign immunity. But Judge Coughenor said a brand new U.S. Supreme Court decision, known as Lewis v. Clarke, allowed the suit to go forward. "Tribal sovereign immunity extends to individual tribal officers who are acting in their representative capacity and within the scope of their authority," Coughenor wrote in a ruling last April. "However, the Supreme Court’s recent decision on this issue is dispositive." "Plaintiffs bring these allegations against defendants in their personal capacities," he added. "Therefore, sovereign immunity is not a jurisdictional bar in this case." Kelly has since asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to review the matter, with a hearing scheduled for March 9 in Seattle. Turtle Talk has posted briefs from the proceeding.
The alleged corrupt actions cited in the RICO suit include repeated attempts to remove more than 300 people from the rolls. Members of a group called The Nooksack 306 have been fighting the disenrollment effort and secured favorable decisions in the tribe's court system. The tribe's disputed leaders subsequently fired the judge who was handling the case and created a new court. They also named Kelly as the chief justice. Kelly has long supported the disenrollment purge. He contends The Nooksack 306 and others are not entitled to tribal citizenship because he says they are "non-Indians." The BIA has not disputed the tribe's authority to determine its citizenship standards. But the agency, during the final year of the Obama administration, said the mass purge took place without a valid council. The Trump administration has maintained that position.
Join the Conversation
Related StoriesBureau of Indian Affairs reaffirms oversight in Nooksack Tribe dispute (January 24, 2018)
Nooksack Tribe plans to revive disenrollment campaign despite many warnings (December 6, 2017)
Nooksack Tribe clears path for new election in hopes of resolving leadership crisis (September 7, 2017)
Nooksack Tribe loses federal health care funds as disenrollment drama drags on (August 9, 2017)
Nooksack Tribe remains without recognized council as Trump administration digs in (May 12, 2017)
Disputed leaders of Nooksack Tribe hit by new Supreme Court decision (April 27, 2017)
Disputed leader of Nooksack Tribe blames 'non-Indians' for crisis (April 6, 2017)
Trump administration calls out Nooksack Tribe for 'abuses of power' (April 4, 2017)
Internal tribal disputes continue to trip up federal court system (March 23, 2017)
Nooksack Tribe tries to evict family amid mass enrollment purge (December 22, 2016)
Leader of Nooksack Tribe defends purge of 'non-Indians' from rolls (November 23, 2016)
Indian Health Service warns Nooksack Tribe about disenrollees (November 22, 2016)
Bureau of Indian Affairs rebuffs Nooksack Tribe on disenrollment (November 17, 2016)