Alaska Supreme Court says Alaska tribal health communities are often legally exempt • Alaska Beacon

The Alaska Supreme Court ruled Friday that Alaska Native tribal organizations can more easily receive these types of incentives, overturning two decades of precedent. Sovereign legal immunity What each tribe has.

Friday's decision was 4-1. This means that tribal federations that provide health care to tens of thousands of Alaskans (both Native and non-Native) are largely immune from civil lawsuits in state courts unless those federations waive their immunity. do.

The decision establishes immunity through a five-step test already used in some federal courts. Previously, state judges used a simpler test that looked only at whether a consortium was economically separate from its member tribes.

Friday's case began in 2019 with a woman named Yvonne Ito. She said she was unfairly fired by the Copper River Indian Association.and the association claimed immunity.

“This is a great day for Alaska tribes,” said Nathaniel “Tanner” Amdur Clark, attorney for the Copper River Indian Association. “Courts have recognized that when tribes come together to do things like provide health care to their citizens, they are doing so as members of the tribe.”

Attorney Jim Davis of the Northern Justice Project in Fairbanks represented Ito. He said he believes thousands of Consortium employees currently have no legal recourse in cases of sexual harassment, discrimination or wage theft unless the Consortium waives immunity in their employment contracts.

“Given this new decision, if you are an employee of these companies and are the victim of sexual harassment, racial discrimination, unlawful demotion, wage theft, etc., these companies have immunity. “There is virtually no relief,” he said in an email. “We can support our tribes 100%. So does the Northern Justice Project. Please also consider today's decision a travesty for thousands of Alaska State employees.”

The decision does not apply to Native businesses established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, such as Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, but even with that exemption, it would affect many of the state's largest employers. give.

Independent investigation A survey conducted this year by Alaska Business Magazine listed two health care consortia among the state's 10 largest private employers.When conducted by the Alaska Department of Labor Detailed analysis of 2010Tribal associations represented six of the state's top 50 private employers.

Two of the five Alaska Supreme Court justices, Peter Maassen and Dario Borgesan, have resigned, leaving two semi-retired justices, Dana Fave and Warren Matthews, Daniel Winfrey, Susan He will appear in court alongside Carney and Jennifer Henderson.

Henderson wrote for the majority that federal court decisions over the past 20 years have shown that in 2004, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that a key test in determining whether a consortium is legally weaponized is “financial insulation.” “This shows that it was a mistake to declare that are members of an affiliated tribe and should share sovereign immunity.

“Multiple federal circuit courts have adopted frameworks for evaluating tribal immunity, but none treats financial insulation as favorable,” she said.

Henderson wrote that instead of the old test, state judges should use a five-part test adopted by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Alaska.

The judge must consider the purpose of the consortium, how it is established, how it is managed, the intentions of its member tribes, and the financial relationships between the consortium and its member tribes.

The state of Alaska argued that the Copper River Indian Association was incorporated under Alaska law and therefore should not be subject to sovereign immunity.

Mr. Henderson told the majority that the state was wrong.

“No single factor is the deciding factor, even if the corporation is formed under state law,” she wrote.

In overturning precedent, the court said, it must determine not only that the circumstances have changed, but also that a change in interpretation “will do more good than harm.”

A four-judge majority concluded that the benefits of the new ruling outweighed the harms, but Senior Justice Warren Matthews disagreed.

“In my opinion, the answer is 'no' and the question is not even close,” he wrote.

“Today's decision ensures that these companies are exempt from the normal enforcement mechanisms built into Alaska's Health, Safety, Employment, and Civil Rights Act and from all types of local ordinances, including tax, planning, zoning, and building codes. It is exempted,” he said. “These laws are very important. Once immunity is obtained, normal enforcement tools are no longer available.”

He went on to say that employees “will have no way to assert claims against their employers.” …Unpaid suppliers and contractors who breach their contracts will also be left without recourse. ”

“Relegating workers to the same powerless position they had in the early 20th century, and keeping sectors of the economy off limits to normal law enforcement activities aimed at protecting public health and welfare, poses serious harm,” he said. I can't think of anything else,” he concluded.

Mr Amder-Clark said the “sky is falling” issue raised by Mr Matthews was “not really going to happen”.

The consortium said in its legal filing that it was concerned about frivolous lawsuits that would force it to spend money that would otherwise go towards medical costs.

“The primary benefit is security. …It ensures that these critical resources intended for the benefit of patients and Alaska Natives are actually used to do so, rather than fend off legal claims.”

He said that if someone was injured by a doctor and needed to file a medical malpractice claim, they could do so in federal court, and that employees and suppliers working with the consortium are bound by the law in their contracts. Partial waivers can be negotiated to ensure that both sides are protected.

The case was closely watched by the state of Alaska, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Ito, and the U.S. government, which filed a similar brief against the association.

Tribal groups within the state — including tanana chiefs conferencethe Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, the Bristol Bay Tribal Confederacy, the Mani-Iraq Association, and the Southeast Alaska Community Health Consortium. they expressed interest in the issue via friend of the court brief.

Erin Dougherty Lynch is the lead attorney for the Native American Rights Fund, which filed some of these briefs. He said the case ultimately comes down to fundamental issues. That means tribes have been recognized as sovereign governments with their own rights and responsibilities virtually since the founding of the United States.

“For example, each of the five tribes operates its own health care program and each has tribal sovereignty privileges,” she said. “If the same five tribes decide to come together and jointly operate a health care program that serves all five communities, why does an individual's five tribes basically deny everyone basic sovereignty?” Should she lose her sovereign immunity?”