FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Agency Tribal Nations Issues PN-590: Notice of Establishment of Tribal Court
Mendocino Indian Reservation Tribal Court — Forthcoming | Diversion to Tribal Court Program | Tribal Land Requires Tribal Court, Not State Court

April 10, 2026

Mendocino Indian Reservation • Sovereign Tribal Territory

Public Notice #: PN-590

Subject: Establishment of Tribal Court

Authority: Constitution Art. 2, 7, 18, 23 • Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959)

AGENCY TRIBAL NATIONS today issued Public Notice PN-590, hereby giving formal notice of the forthcoming establishment of the Agency Tribal Nations Tribal Court on the Mendocino Indian Reservation. This Tribal Court shall exercise federal jurisdiction over all matters arising on tribal land, including cannabis regulation, civil disputes, and the new Diversion to Tribal Court Program. All interested parties, state agencies, and the general public are placed on notice that Tribal Court is federal, holds full authority in all states, and that tribal land requires Tribal Court — not state court.

NOTICE: State Court Has No Jurisdiction on Tribal Land

State courts do not have jurisdiction over matters arising on the Mendocino Indian Reservation. The Supreme Court of the United States held in Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959) that state courts may not exercise jurisdiction over disputes arising in Indian country when doing so would infringe on the right of tribal self-government. Tribal land requires Tribal Court. This is not optional — it is the supreme law of the land.

Tribal Court Is Federal — Full Authority in All States

Tribal Courts are recognized under federal law as courts of competent jurisdiction with inherent sovereign authority. Tribal Court is not a state institution. Tribal Court is federal. Tribal Court holds full authority in all states of the United States. This authority is established by:

Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832) — Indian nations are “distinct, independent political communities” with the right to self-governance within their territory
Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959) — State courts may not assume jurisdiction over matters arising in Indian country; such disputes belong in Tribal Court
Iowa Mutual Insurance Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9 (1987) — Federal courts must defer to tribal courts and allow tribal courts to first determine their own jurisdiction (“tribal exhaustion doctrine”)
National Farmers Union Insurance Cos. v. Crow Tribe, 471 U.S. 845 (1985) — Tribal courts are courts of “general jurisdiction” and federal courts must exhaust tribal remedies before intervening
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978) — Tribal sovereignty includes the power to establish and operate tribal courts as the exclusive forum for tribal matters
Indian Tribal Justice Act, 25 U.S.C. §3601 et seq. — Congress recognizes tribal justice systems as “an essential part of tribal governments” and the “primary forums” for resolving disputes on tribal land

The Diversion to Tribal Court Program

Agency Tribal Nations is establishing the Diversion to Tribal Court Program, which will redirect matters currently being improperly handled by state courts back to their rightful jurisdiction: Tribal Court. This program is necessary because:

Why Diversion to Tribal Court Is Necessary

State court is not the proper forum for tribal land. Matters arising on the Mendocino Indian Reservation belong in Tribal Court. State courts lack jurisdiction under Williams v. Lee and the federal trust relationship.
Cannabis regulation requires Tribal Court. Under the Cannabis Licensing 2026 framework and the CREATE Act (§§26240–26270), all cannabis regulatory disputes, licensing actions, and disciplinary proceedings are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribal Cannabis Regulatory Commission and Tribal Court.
Tribal sovereignty demands it. The Constitution of the Mendocino California Tribal Nations, Article 18, preserves absolute sovereign immunity. The tribe submits to no state forum. Tribal Court is the proper and exclusive forum.
Federal law requires it. Under the Indian Tribal Justice Act (25 U.S.C. §3601), Congress recognizes that tribal justice systems are the “primary forums for adjudicating disputes” affecting personal and property rights on tribal lands.
PL 280 does not transfer civil regulatory jurisdiction. Even in PL 280 states, the Supreme Court held in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987), that PL 280 does not grant states civil regulatory authority over tribal activities on tribal land.

What the Tribal Court Will Handle

The Agency Tribal Nations Tribal Court will have jurisdiction over:

Cannabis licensing disputes — all regulatory, licensing, and disciplinary matters under the CREATE Act
Banking and financial disputes — all matters arising under the cannabis banking system (PN-580)
Civil disputes on tribal land — contracts, property, torts, and commercial disputes arising on the Mendocino Indian Reservation
Diversion cases — matters improperly filed in state court that belong in Tribal Court
Regulatory enforcement — environmental, health, safety, and compliance enforcement for tribal licensees
Tribal government matters — administrative law, employment disputes, and government operations
Treaty and sovereignty disputes — interpretation and enforcement of the Master Treaty of Peace and constitutional provisions

Timeline

Agency Tribal Nations hereby gives notice that the Tribal Court is in the process of formal establishment. The following components are under active development and shall be completed prior to the commencement of Tribal Court operations:

Tribal Court Rules of Procedure — governing pleadings, motions, hearings, and judgments
Tribal Court Code of Conduct — ethical standards for judges, advocates, and officers of the court
Tribal Court Facility — establishment of court chambers on the Mendocino Indian Reservation
Diversion to Tribal Court Procedures — formal processes for redirecting cases from state court to Tribal Court
Judicial Appointments — selection of Tribal Court judges under the constitutional authority of the Head Chief and Tribal Council

Further public notices will be issued as each component is finalized. The public is invited to submit comments during the 30-day comment period below.

Legal Authority

The establishment of Tribal Court is authorized by:

Constitution of the Mendocino California Tribal Nations — Article 2 (inherent sovereignty), Article 7 (judicial authority), Article 18 (sovereign immunity), Article 23 (controlling definitions)
Indian Tribal Justice Act, 25 U.S.C. §3601 et seq.
Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. §3651 et seq.
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. §5301 et seq.
Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832)
Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959)
Iowa Mutual Insurance Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9 (1987)
National Farmers Union Insurance Cos. v. Crow Tribe, 471 U.S. 845 (1985)

Submit a Public Comment on PN-590

This Public Notice is open for public comment for thirty (30) days from the date of publication.

Comment Period: April 10, 2026 — May 10, 2026

Comment via Email

Comments are sent to chief@altearth.org — Office of the Head Chief, Agency Tribal Nations

← Back to All Public Notices