In the Matter of Spota v. Jackson , Tina Jackson, a longtime resident of the Unkechaug Indian Nation , was at risk of losing her family residence because of her heritage -- or lack thereof.
Tina was married to George Jackson, a blood-right member of the Unkechaug tribe. Together, with their three children, the couple lived on land given to George on the Poospatuck Indian Reservation . According to tribal by-laws, Tina was permitted to "reside on the allotment by derivative right as the spouse of a member who exercised his right to reside on an allotment on the reservation."
In 2003, Tina reported an instance of spousal abuse to the tribe, then took George to court to obtain child support, and later obtained an order of protection against him. In February of 2004, George moved out and transferred his interest in the land to his brother, Glenn. In May, the Tribal Council sent a letter to Tina declaring her an "intruder" and demanding that she vacate the property. When she refused to leave, the Council authorized the local District Attorney to begin removal proceedings.
According to the County Court, Suffolk County, because Tina was a longtime resident of the reservation and had not forced her way onto the land, she could not be considered an "intruder." It held that Tina could continue to live on the property with her three sons, all tribe members, until the youngest son turned 21 years old -- the age at which the right of support extends in New York State.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed.
When the dispute reached our state's highest court, the New York State Court of Appeals determined that under New York Indian Law § 8, the County Court had no discretion to decide whether or not Tina Jackson was an intruder. As § 8 provides, an intruder is a "non-member" who "resides or settles" within the boundaries of Indian land, the only appropriate area of inquiry was whether or not the "intruder" had tribal membership.
The Court of Appeals noted that, "The tribes' right to make internal substantive law and to determine their own membership according to such law, is diminished if county courts have the discretion to independently decide who is an 'intruder' on Indian lands … As there is no dispute that Tina Jackson is not a member of the Poospatuck Nation and resides on a reservation allotment, she is an 'intruder' within the meaning of section 8."
Clearly, there's no intruding in tribal affairs.
To download a copy of the Court of Appeals' decision, please use this link: Matter of Spota v. Jackson
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Matter of Spota v. Jackson (AD2)