ONC Tribal Court
Providing culturally appropriate administration of justice to resolve conflicts.
Mission
Seeking justice through the use of customary law and traditional practices and processes.
Goal
The goal of the Tribal Court is to provide a user-friendly, culturally-appropriate forum for tribal citizens to address their justice needs.
Vision
In order to affirm our sovereign powers to self-government and self-determination and to preserve, protect and build upon our unique and distinctive culture and traditions, our vision is to establish a judicial system for the resolution of disputes in order to :
- Provide for the fair, efficient and culturally appropriate administration of justice whereby conflicts are resolved constant with tribal traditions and customs; and
- Exercise jurisdiction over all matters to ensure that the sovereignty of the ONC Tribe is recognized and to protect the welfare of tribal members; and
- Provide all affected persons with a fair, prompt and impartial hearing so as to afford all persons who appear before ONC Tribal Court all rights guaranteed by the constitution of the ONC Tribe.
The Judicial power of the ONC Tribe shall be vested in the ONC Tribal Court, comprised of the Supreme Court and the Trial Court, and such other courts as the tribal council may later establish. The judicial power of the ONC Tribe Constitution, statutes and resolutions or applicable to the ONC Tribe, and the customs and traditions of the Yup’ik People and to any matter delegated to the Tribe by any state or federal law or agency.
The governing body of the ONC council shall consist of members who are elected by majority vote of qualified members of the Orutsararmiut Native Tribe at their annual meeting. Except as otherwise provided in the constitution, all powers of Orutsararmiut Native Tribe shall be vested in the ONC to enact laws establishing and governing a justice system, including setting up an independent tribal court or other conflict-resolution mechanism and law enforcements and to Represent and protect Orutsararmiut Native Tribe in all matters that concerns the peace, safety, health and general welfare of Orutsararmiut Native Tribe and to make decisions not inconsistent with or contrary to the constitution.
- Susan Murphy, Tribal Court Chief Justice
- Lucinda Alexie, Tribal Court Judge
- April January, Tribal Court Administrator
The ONC Tribal Court was established and is governed by the judicial code. The constitution allows the Tribal Council to create an independent judiciary, through both the practice and under judicial code. The ONC Tribal Court exercises jurisdiction over child welfare cases transferred from state court, guardianship and adoptions. ONC is subject to PL 280, ANCSA, and historically adversarial state government.
*ONC currently does not exercise criminal jurisdiction, adult or juvenile. ONC does have an extensive juvenile justice code, which is currently not being implemented due to lack of staff and funding.
Since time immemorial, The Yupik people have resolved disputes and conflicts, maintained peace in their communities and administered justice through the use of customary law and traditional practices and processes. In order to affirm our sovereign powers of self-government and self-determination, to preserve, protect and build upon our unique and distinctive culture and traditions, we, the members of the Native Village of Bethel Orutsaratmiut Traditional Government (“ONC Tribe” or “Tribe”), adopted these codes:
- Tribal Judicial Codes
- Children’s Codes
- Juvenile Codes
- Current Memorandum of Agreements
Eligibility Requirements
- The Tribal Court shares concurrent jurisdiction with the State of Alaska over a small range of legal issues. Whether a particular case meets the subject matter eligibility requirements is determined on a case-by-case basis.
- With regard to personal jurisdiction of the parties, it is most proper where one or more of the parties is a tribal citizen or at lease eligible to enroll with in the Tribe. However, even in cases wholly involving non-members, jurisdiction to handle the matter can come through either express or implied consent.
Application Process
Tribal Court services are initiated by filing a petition with the tribal court clerk.
Communities served
Any eligible tribal member regardless of where they are located
Orutsararmiut Traditional Native Council
Tribal Court
117 Alex Hately
P.O.Box 406
Bethel, AK 99559
Phone: (907) 543-2608
Fax: (907) 543-2639
serving the Native Village of Bethel
Public Law 280 Jurisdiction History
Alaska is a mandatory Public Law 280 (P.L. 280) state. Congress passed P.L. 280 in 1953, at the height of the termination era. A response to perceived lawlessness on tribal reservations, the law sought to withdraw federal criminal jurisdictions and replace it with state jurisdiction. While Congress passed the law without tribal consent or consultation, contrary to some state interpretations, the law does not address or conscribe inherent tribal jurisdiction. The law primarily concerned itself with shifting criminal jurisdiction, though it also includes a civil jurisdiction provision.
In 1968, Congeress amended P.L. 280 to prevent additional assumptions of jurisdiction in Indian Country without tribal consent, and to allow for states to retrocede their jurisdiction back to the federal government. In the PL. 280 states, tribes and states have concurrent criminal jurisdiction over Indians on tribal lands, though tribal jurisdiction is limited by the Indian Civil Rights Act and may also be subject to the Tribal Law and Order Act or the Violence Against Women Act special jurisdictions. In addition, states and tribes have concurrent civil jurisdiction over issues involving civil prohibitary conduct, while tribes maintain exclusive jurisdiction over civil regulatory conduct.
In Addition, PL 280’s intersection with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) has led to mixed legal decisions regarding tribal jurisdiction over child welfare issues, a major area of concern for many tribal justice systems. P.L. 280 is not a divestiture statute; tribes continue to have inherent jurisdictions over their members, and that provision of the law refers to reassuming exclusive jurisdiction over child welfare matters. As such, under ICWA, the state courts must grant full faith credit to tribal court orders.
For Alaska Native Villages, P.L. 280 coupled with the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) resulted in extensive litigation just to recognize the basic tribal jurisdiction acknowledged and respected in the lower 48 states. In addition, the legal landscape shaped by both of these laws have significantly limited the resources directly available to Alaska Native Villages, from both the federal and tribal economic development.
While P.L. 280 addresses jurisdiction in Indian country generally, in the Alaska Native Village context , the determination of what is Indian Country has been the subject of additional Congressional action and the Supreme court review. Congress passed ANCSA in 1971. In attempting to settle the land claims of the Native Villages, the Act created Byzantine corporation systems for both individual villages and regions of Alaska. After the Supreme Court’s decision Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, where the court determined there was no Indian Country as defined by 18 U.S.C. ∮ 1151 in Alaska due to ANCSA, territorial-based tribal jurisdiction in Alaska is extraordinarily limited.
However, Alaska Native Villages retain inherent member-based tribal jurisdiction to adjudicate domestic issues. And while the State of Alaska claims exclusive criminal jurisdiction regardless of membership or location of the crime, none of the federal laws discussed in this report divest Native villages in Alaska of their inherent criminal jurisdiction. The lack of federal investment and support for Native village justice systems as a result of these laws, however, has meant there are currently a limited number of tribal courts with the necessary capacity to exercise full jurisdiction over their members. This is especially true in the YK Delta Region.
