In the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division Docket No. A
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
FILED, Clerk of the Appellate Division, June 22, 2016, A-002756-15 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-002756-15T2 ON APPEAL FROM FINAL JUDGMENT OF MARCH 9, 2016, IN DOCKET NO. MER-L-2343-15, SUPERIOR COURT, LAW DIVISION, MERCER COUNTY SAT BELOW: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM ANKLOWITZ, J.S.C. NANTICOKE LENNI-LENAPE TRIBAL NATION, Plaintiff, v. JOHN JAY HOFFMAN, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY, Defendant. ________________________________________________________________ BRIEF AND APPENDIX OF PLAINTIFF ________________________________________________________________ Frank L. Corrado (SBN 022221983) Gregory A. Werkheiser (pro hac vice) Barry, Corrado & Grassi, P.C. L. Eden Burgess (pro hac vice) 2700 Pacific Avenue Cultural Heritage Partners, PLLC Wildwood, NJ 08260 2101 L Street NW, Suite 800 [email protected] Washington, DC 20037 Tel: 609.729.1333 [email protected] [email protected] Tel: 202.567.7594 FILED, Clerk of the Appellate Division, June 22, 2016, A-002756-15 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii TABLE OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX iii I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 1 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 3 III. ARGUMENT 9 A. The Requirement of Statutory Recognition Did Not Retroactively Abrogate Prior Recognition of the Tribe 10 B. Even if the Statutory Recognition Requirement Is Applied Retroactively, the Legislature Ipso Facto Recognized the Tribe By Statute 13 C. The Complaint Alleges State Recognition of the Tribe Since 1982, and Defendant's Unconstitutional Attempt to Repudiate It 16 1. By resolution, statutes, and conduct, the state recognized Plaintiff as a tribe 16 2. Post-2002 legislative efforts to clarify the Tribe's status in the face of continued discrimination do not establish prior non-recognition 18 3. The complaint alleges that Defendant has an arbitrary and invidious motivation in attempting to strip the Tribe of its state recognition 19 IV. CONCLUSION 20 FILED, Clerk of the Appellate Division, June 22, 2016, A-002756-15 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Banco Popular N. Am. v. Gandi, 184 N.J. 161 (2005)..... 9, 16, 20 Cruz v. Cent. Jersey Landscaping, Inc., 195 N.J. 33 (2008)........................................................ 11 Gibbons v. Gibbons, 86 N.J. 515 (1981)........................ 11 In re D.C., 146 N.J. 31 (1996)................................ 11 In re N.Y. Susquehanna & Western R.R. Co., 25 N.J. 343 (1957)........................................................ 16 James v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co., 216 N.J. 552 (2014)........................................................ 11 Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 116 N.J. 739 (1989)......................................... 3, 9 Rezem Family Assoc. v. Bor. of Millstone, 423 N.J. Super. 103 (App Div.), certif. denied and appeal dismissed, 208 N.J. 366 (2011)................................. 9 Schiavo v. John F. Kennedy Hosp., 258 N.J. Super. 380 (App. Div. 1992), aff’d, 131 N.J. 400 (1993).................. 12 Teamsters Local 97 v. State, 434 N.J. Super. 393 (App. Div. 2014)..................................................... 9 United Houma Nation v. Babbitt, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10095 (D.D.C. July 8, 1997)................................... 14 State Statutes N.J.S.A. 26:8-49........................................ 3, 5, 13 N.J.S.A. 52:16A-53........................................ passim Other Legislative Authority Concurrent Resolution CR73............................. 4, 16, 17 P.L. 1991, c. 359............................................. 13 P.L. 1995, c. 295............................................. 14 P.L. 2001, c. 417............................................. 10 Rules R. 1:36-3..................................................... 14 R. 4:34-4...................................................... 1 R. 4:6-2(a).................................................... 2 ii FILED, Clerk of the Appellate Division, June 22, 2016, A-002756-15 R. 4:6-2(e)................................................. 2, 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX Order Granting State’s Motion to Dismiss, dated March 9, 2016..............................................Pa1 Notice of Appeal, dated March 11, 2016.....................Pa2 Transcript request, dated March 11, 2016, and Transcript transmittal, dated March 18, 2016...............Pa6 Complaint, dated October 13, 2015..........................Pa7 State’s Motion to Dismiss, dated December 24, 2015.........Pa30 Certification of Stuart Feinblatt, dated December 24, 2015, with exhibits........................................Pa32 Exhibit A: Senate Concurrent Resolution N. 73, dated December 17, 1982...............................Pa35 Exhibit B: Letter, Suarez (NJDGE) to Stanton (USIACB), dated December 14, 2001.....................Pa38 Exhibit C: Lt Propco, LLC v. Westland Garden State Plaza L.P., 2010 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 3116 (App. Div. Dec. 28, 2010).............................Pa41 Exhibit D: N.J. Sand Hill Band of Lenape & Cherokee Indians v. Corzine, No. 09-683, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66605 (D.N.J. June 30, 2010).........Pa46 Exhibit E: Shinnecock Indian Nation v. Kempthorne, No. 06-5013, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75826 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2008).............................Pa69 Amalgamated Indus., Inc. v. Historic E. Pequot Tribe, X03CV034000287, 2005 Conn. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1214 (Conn. Super. May 2, 2005) (unpublished opinion cited in Plaintiff’s trial court brief)..........................Pa89 United Houma Nation v. Babbitt, 197 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10095 (D.D.C.) July 8, 1997..........................Pa98 iii FILED, Clerk of the Appellate Division, June 22, 2016, A-002756-15 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT This is a civil rights action, with related common law claims. The Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Tribal Nation alleges that the New Jersey’s Acting Attorney General has wrongfully repudiated the state’s recognition of it as an American Indian tribe, thereby violating the Tribe’s state constitutional rights to due process and equal protection, and its common law right to rely on the state’s word and to be free of arbitrary state treatment. Plaintiff is a constitutionally organized, 3,000-member American Indian tribe based in Cumberland County. Defendant is the state’s Acting Attorney General, in both his individual and official capacities.1 Pa8. State recognition of a tribe is a necessary predicate for certain federal benefits, such as grants, loans, scholarships, and the right to market crafts as “genuine” Native American merchandise. It is thus essential to the Tribe’s viability. Pa14-15. The Tribe filed its five-count complaint on October 18, 2015. Counts I through III, brought directly and under the New 1 When the Tribe filed its complaint, the Acting Attorney General was John Jay Hoffman. Hoffman vacated the position and was replaced by Robert Lougy. The Governor recently nominated Lougy to the Superior Court and nominated Christopher Porrino as Acting Attorney General. See R. 4:34-4. 1 FILED, Clerk of the Appellate Division, June 22, 2016, A-002756-15 Jersey Civil Rights Act, allege deprivation of procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection under the state constitution. Count IV is a common-law estoppel claim, and Count V alleges improperly arbitrary treatment under state law. Pa23-27. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. R. 4:6- 2(a), (e). After oral argument on March 9, 2016, the trial court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. Pa1. In a bench opinion, the court held that absent a statute expressly recognizing the Tribe, the Tribe lacked state recognition and therefore could not state a cause of action for its deprivation. T17-3 to 10.2 On March 11, 2016, the Tribe filed a timely notice of appeal. Pa2. For the following three reasons, it asks this Court to reverse the trial court’s dismissal and reinstate the Tribe’s complaint: First, the legislature created the requirement of statutory tribal recognition in 2002. But Plaintiff was first recognized as a tribe in 1982. The trial court’s decision improperly applies the statutory requirement retroactively, thereby 2 References are as follows: “Pa___” refers to the Plaintiff’s Appendix. “T___” refers to the transcript of the trial court’s March 9, 2016, decision. 2 FILED, Clerk of the Appellate Division, June 22, 2016, A-002756-15 discrediting the state’s established process of recognition prior to 2002. Second, even if statutory recognition is required, N.J.S.A. 26:8-49 and N.J.S.A. 52:16A-53, enacted in 1992 and 1995 respectively, constitute ipso facto recognition of the Tribe. Third, the Tribe’s complaint alleges facts that, taken as true, establish both state recognition of the Tribe since 1982 and defendant’s arbitrary, unconstitutional, and invidiously motivated attempt to repudiate that recognition.3 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS On a motion to dismiss, a court must accept as true the plaintiff’s well-pleaded facts. Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elec. Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 746 (1989). Following are the facts of this matter under that standard, all of which are taken from the Tribe’s complaint: The Tribe has a long history in New Jersey and the surrounding region, dating back approximately 12,000 years. Pa8. Colonists’ diseases and violence took heavy tolls on the Lenni-Lenape people, and the Brotherton Reservation in present- 3 The Tribe has filed a parallel federal complaint, Nanticoke