A PETITION FOR REVIEW dated April 25, 2000, having been filed by the Fort Peck Sioux General Council, by and through its officers, Floyd Youngman, Chairman, Del Wayne First, Vice Chairman, Agnes Ward, Secretary and Myrna First, Treasurer, from three (3) separate orders denying their Petition for Order to Restrain various officials of the Cities and County ‘within the boundaries of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation’, as well as State of Montana and Fort Peck Tribal officials from entering into an agreement for the ‘cross deputization’ of certain law enforcement officers which would grant authority to arrest Indians within the exterior boundaries of the Fort Peck Tribal Reservation, the Honorable Chief Judge, A. T. Stafne, presiding.

    Based upon the lower Court documents, this Court finds:

1. That the appellants herein filed three separate Petitions for Order to Restrain on April 24, 2000, requesting that the Fort Peck Tribal Court restrain various City, County, State and Tribal officials from ‘entering into any and all Cooperative Agreements that would provide Cross Deputization of Law Enforcement Officers on the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Indian reservation’ based upon allegations that such agreement(s) were scheduled to be signed at 11:00 a.m. on April 26, 2000, and further, that such agreement(s), if entered into, would subject Tribal members and other Indian persons to the jurisdiction of non-Indian law enforcement entities. Appellants conclude that such subjection will "affect the individual civil rights and treaty rights" of all Indians within the boundaries of the Fort Peck Tribes. All three petitions were filed with the Tribal Court without proof of service on any of the adverse parties.
2. That the Tribal Court's denial of the Petition for Order to Restrain officials of the Fort Peck Tribes is based upon Title IV § 401(a)¹ which prohibits the Court from issuing Temporary Restraining Orders or any injunction against the Tribes, or one of their officials acting on behalf of the Tribes, without prior notice.
3. Further, all three denials are based upon a failure of appellants to show "specific facts…by oral testimony, affidavit, or by verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury will result" in that "(a)ll Indians who reside on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation are already subject to the arrest by non-tribal law enforcement officers in certain situations". It is assumed that the Tribal Court was making reference to Title III § 208².
4. A careful reading of all three petitions reveals that appellants were not requesting Temporary Restraining Orders, but rather, permanent restraining orders. However, the fact that appellants filed their petitions, giving the Tribal Court only two days to act before the actions sought to be restrained were to take place, coupled with the fact that the Petitions were filed without proof of notice to the opposing parties, easily gives the impression that appellants were asking the Tribal Court to act without conducting a hearing. Such action would have been in violation of §401(a), cited above.
5. In their petitions, appellants allege, "There is no foundation in fact or law enacted by treaty, constitutional provision or otherwise which authorizes the Defendants to subject tribal members or other Indian persons, residing within the exterior boundaries of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, to the jurisdiction of non-Indian law enforcement entities". It must be assumed that appellants are either unaware of Title III § 208 or they are, by implication, challenging its constitutionality. If appellants were to formally challenge the constitutionality of § 208, they must do so with a great deal more precision. While such a challenge would afford them the opportunity to be heard, it should be noted that any preliminary injunction pending the outcome of the challenge must meet the standard set forth in § 402³, which is essentially the same standard set forth in § 401(a).

    Based upon the foregoing reasons, the Petition for Review is denied.

    Dated this 25th day of April, 2000.

BY THE COURT OF APPEALS:

_________________________ 
Gary P. Sullivan
Chief Justice