General Information

Click here for Gun Lake Tribal Court's Schedule of Court Fees 


Tribal Court Rules

Court Rules of Ethics for Tribal Court Personnel (PDF)
Court Rules of Judicial Conduct (PDF)
Court Rules of Appellate Procedure (PDF)
Court Rules for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Court Actions, Warrants and Subpoenas
Court Rules of Evidence


Practicing Law in the Gun Lake Tribal Court

Application and Affidavit for Admission to Practice
Affidavit and Oath of Admission


Tribal Court Forms 

Civil Complaint
Certification of Records of Michigan Court
Final Statement on Order of Garnishment
Petition/Affidavit of Petitioner for Garnishment
Petition/Affidavit to Update Delinquent Child Support Obligation
Petition/Affidavit to Withhold Per Capita Payments for Delinquent Child Support
Petition for Order of Garnishment
Affidavit of Indigency and Request for Waiver of Filing Fee
Affidavit of Primary Support by Public Assistance and Request for Waiver of Filing Fee


Tribal Court Ordinances 

Judicial Ordinance
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Ordinance
Child Protection and General Welfare Ordinance
Civil Infractions Ordinance
Criminal Procedures Ordinance


Tribal Court Opinions 

Jodie Palmer and Tomie Williamson v. Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians Tribal Council, et al.

March 22, 2016 (CIV-2016-001)

In this civil action Petitioners allege that Respondents, while acting in their official capacities, acted illegally when they called for a Special Meeting of the Tribal Council which resulted in the enactment of Resolution 16-951 (which would open enrollment for a limited time with limited criteria). Petitioners sought declaratory judgment that Resolution 16-951 was not lawfully enacted and also an injunction to enjoin any attempts at implementing Resolution 16-951. In response, Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction on the grounds that: (1) Petitioners lack standing to sue, (2) Respondents are immune from suit based upon tribal sovereign immunity, and (3) the Court has no jurisdiction over enrollment matters.

The Court granted Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that Respondents are immune from suit, protected by tribal sovereign immunity because it has not been expressly and unequivocally waived as required by both federal and tribal law. Therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.


Alyssa Bailey, et al. v. Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, et al.

March 17, 2012 (CIV-2011-027)

In this civil action, Petitioners allege that Respondents, while acting in their official capacities, denied Petitioners an opportunity to apply for tribal citizenship that was afforded to some others. In response, Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the Tribal Court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the Tribe, or over any cause of action alleged against the Tribe, without the express consent of the Tribe or an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity from suit expressly given by the Tribe which neither the Tribe’s Constitution, Enrollment Ordinance, nor Judicial Ordinance provide.

The Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that there has been no waiver of the Tribe’s immunity from this kind of suit. The Tribal Constitution’s Bill of Rights provides a waiver of sovereign immunity that is limited to Tribal members. Furthermore, there is no waiver of sovereign immunity in the Tribe’s Judicial Ordinance or in the Enrollment Ordinance. Thus, the Court has no authority over Respondents.