Show summary Hide summary
The dispute over who controls the Eastern Shoshone tribal government has moved from social media and the reservation hallways into the courts, raising fresh questions about who can lawfully run daily services and how internal disputes are resolved. A federal judge quickly declined to step in after a tribal member asked a U.S. court to decide which council is legitimate, leaving the matter to tribal judges and prolonging uncertainty for residents.
By Katie Klingsporn
What happened and why it matters now
In late December, organizers circulated a petition that led to a special general council meeting on Jan. 10. That vote removed the sitting members of the Eastern Shoshone Business Council and installed a new slate of leaders; the ousted council says the proceedings were procedurally flawed and therefore invalid. The split has disrupted tribal operations, produced restraining orders and public demonstrations, and triggered a 94‑page federal lawsuit asking for a ruling on which body is the lawful government.
Astrology update May 10: what every zodiac sign needs to know
Man shot outside Dunkin’ Donuts: dad of twins dies after late-night argument
U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl dismissed the federal case the day after it was filed, concluding the court lacked jurisdiction. He acknowledged the tribal court judge might face a conflict that could warrant recusal, but he said any such conflict did not remove the tribal court’s authority to decide the dispute.
Key developments
- Dec. 2025: Petition circulators request a special general council meeting to consider removing all six sitting members of the Eastern Shoshone Business Council.
- Jan. 10, 2026: The special general council meeting is held; organizers say a quorum was reached and the membership voted to remove the council and elect a new board.
- Afterward: The ousted council contests the meeting’s validity, citing alleged procedural defects; both groups claim authority and operate in parallel.
- Late Feb. 2026: Petition initiator June Tillman files a federal lawsuit detailing allegations of nepotism, corruption at the tribe’s casino and retaliatory actions she says prompted the petition; Judge Skavdahl dismisses it for lack of jurisdiction.
- Current: The matter remains before Wind River Tribal Court; a scheduled hearing was postponed and the dispute continues to affect tribal governance and services.
How the conflict unfolded
The Eastern Shoshone government operates two layers: the elected business council that oversees departments such as housing and tribal enterprises, and the broader general council made up of all enrolled members age 18 and older, which retains ultimate authority through direct votes. Nearly 4,000 enrolled Eastern Shoshone members live on the Wind River Reservation alongside roughly 8,600 Northern Arapaho enrollees.
Organizers say they followed the petition process to request the special meeting; council critics point to missing forms and a lack of verified signatures to argue the meeting was unauthorized. Each side has produced its own narrative and documentation, and both continue to assert they are the lawful governing body.
The lawsuit by June Tillman — a former tribal gaming commissioner who was reportedly removed from that role — lays out a string of grievances: she alleges casino employees tied to council members were shielded from discipline, that the council amended gaming rules to benefit associates, and that she and another commissioner were improperly unappointed and denied a grievance hearing. Those claims were the proximate causes, she contends, for seeking the general council’s intervention.
Immediate consequences on the reservation
Since January, the leadership crisis has had practical effects. Tribal offices were temporarily closed, in-person and online forums have been rife with accusation, and public protests drew residents to Fort Washakie. Social media pages tied to the tribe have been removed or replaced, and at least one member of the newly elected council spent several days in tribal custody following a restraining-order hearing.
Both sides say they are pursuing legal remedies. The new council has argued it acted within the tribe’s rules to remove and replace officials, while members of the former council maintain the actions were improperly executed and should be overturned by tribal judicial process.
What to watch next
Key questions yet to be resolved include whether the tribal judge will recuse themselves, how the Wind River Tribal Court will interpret procedural requirements for special general council meetings, and whether any decisions there will prompt renewed federal involvement.
For residents the stakes are immediate: which leadership body controls budgets, staffing decisions at tribal enterprises such as the Shoshone Rose Casino, and the day‑to‑day delivery of services tied to housing, employment and public safety. The outcome will also test internal dispute-resolution mechanisms in a sovereign nation where both direct democratic processes and elected representatives play defined but sometimes overlapping roles.
Journalists and observers should expect more filings in tribal court, possible appeals, and continued public demonstrations as both camps seek clarity and legitimacy. Until a final determination is reached, many daily functions and long-term planning within the tribe are likely to remain affected.
