application, made in federal court and seeking non-damages relief. Finally, there is United States v. James, a 1992 decision from the Ninth Circuit. The James court did recognize that an Indian tribe enjoyed sovereign immunity, based on “its status as a dependent domestic nation,” from a third-party subpoena issued on the application of a criminal defendant (before noting that, at least to certain categories of requested documents, the tribe had waived that immunity). 980 F.2d 1314, 1319-20 (9th Cir. 1992). But, as several courts both inside and outside of the Ninth Circuit have since recognized, James’ abbreviated discussion of the issue failed even to acknowledge the constitutional interests at stake given the posture of the underlying matter. See, e.g., Alltel, 675 F.3d at 1105 (<HOLDING>); Velarde, 40 F.Supp.2d at 1315-17 (“I reject
holding that defendants have a right to counsel in criminal proceedings holding that disputes involving questions of interpretation of a tribal constitution and tribal law is not within the jurisdiction of the district court holding that a criminal defendant has a sixth amendment right to counsel at trial holding that the fourteenth amendment incorporated the sixth amendment right to counsel recognizing that james has been criticized and distinguished in district court opinions that have concluded that the sixth amendment rights of criminal defendants among other things counsel against such a broad interpretation of tribal immunity