Tribal courts get more state recognition A state Supreme Court decision says the courts' jurisdiction must be observed By Ray Barrington News-Chronicle A state Supreme Court decision gives tribal courts in Wisconsin new legitimacy, attorneys for two area tribes say. The decision Thursday in a case involving the Bad River Band of Chippewa said the tribal court had jurisdiction in an employment case. But its larger implication is to recognize the validity of tribal court judgments, said Jennifer Carleton, senior staff attorney at the Oneida Nation's law offices. "That's never been explicitly stated that tribal court judgments should be given full faith and credit," she said. The decision, written by justice N. Patrick Crooks, a former Brown County Circuit Court judge, came after a 2000 decision in the Bad River case. The court ruled on a 5-2 vote that the case of Jerry Teague, a former casino manager for the tribe, should have been handled in tribal court. The tribe filed the case in tribal court in 1995 and eventually won its case. Teague filed his case in Ashland County Circuit Court and received a $400,000 judgment. The case went to the state Supreme Court in 2000. At that time, the court sent the case back to the two courts, telling them to work out the issue. They couldn't, and the case went back up to the Supreme Court. "What it means for the future," said Paul Stenzel, an attorney for the Stockbridge-Munsee Band of Mohican Indians, "is that the state Supreme Court wants the courts to confer and cooperate when these cases arise in the future. It's not real common, but it does happen." Stenzel worked on the Bad River case in its early stages. Tribal laws may differ from state laws in some areas, Carleton said. "The tribe can adopt its own laws with regard to internal matters, and does so," she said. "And for the most part, state law would not override that. State employment laws, for example, would not apply within the jurisdiction of the tribe." On a practical basis, Stenzel said, "litigants who go through tribal courts want to know their cases will be enforced elsewhere when they get judgments in divorces, name changes, civil judgments and so on. That's important." The decision does not make tribal courts part of the state system, he said. "If there's an appeal from a tribal court, it goes to a tribal appellate court if they have one, and most do," he said. "This case was unusual and went through the state system because of the dual filings."