The Southern District of California dismissed an action by several disenrolled members of the Pala Indian tribe in Allen v. Smith (link to TurtleTalk for court documents). The tribal defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of sovereign immunity, as is typical in these membership actions. What sets this decision apart from your garden variety disenrollment dismissal is the first apparent decision regarding the individual/official capacity distinction that was referenced in this opinion. And for that, we need to back up and explain things a little.
The Maxwell Decision
This time, plaintiffs attempted to make use of a new 9th Circuit case, Maxwell v. County of San Diego (link to Ninth Circuit for published opinion) to sue tribal officers in their individual capacity rather than the tribe itself. In most sovereign immunity cases involving state and local governments, when a public officer is sued it makes a difference whether that person is sued in their individual or official capacity. To keep it brief, official capacity suits are no different than suing the sovereign entity itself because if the plaintiff wins, then the money is paid by the entity. However, when officials are sued in their official capacity, they are entitled to assert sovereign immunity as a defense to the plaintiff’s claim so long as they can show they were operating within the scope of their official authority. Individual suits, on the other hand, target only the public official for his own actions and do not seek relief from the entity, but from the individual.
In Maxwell, family members of a shooting victim brought an action in federal court against a tribal fire department and its paramedics, alleging that the individual paramedics unreasonably delayed in obtaining medical treatment for the victim. The paramedics asserted tribal sovereign immunity because they were operating under a public safety cooperative agreement which expressly reserved the tribe’s immunity in case of suit. However, that did not work out for the paramedics because the Ninth Circuit held that a remedy against the paramedics would have operated against them individually and not the tribe. The paramedics themselves would be paying the plaintiffs’ damages, not the tribe (indemnity agreements notwithstanding); therefore, as persons sued in their individual capacity, the paramedics could not assert sovereign immunity as a defense.
Overall, the Maxwell case is troubling for tribal governments because the official/individual capacity distinction did not exist in federal Indian common law until this decision, to which the Turtle Talk blog discussed.I could go on as to why I like and dislike the Maxwell, but at the time I wondered if Maxwell gave disenrollees another shot at challenging their disenrollments if the individual tribal officers were sued in their individual capacities and not the tribe. The plaintiff’s attorney in this case thought the same thing, but unfortunately, it did not work out.
The Remedy Sought in Disenrollment Challenges Operates Against Tribes, Not Individuals
The Hon. William Hayes of the Southern District of California began its analysis with the usual verbiage about the contours of sovereign immunity, including familiar references to Santa Clara Pueblo that most disenrolled are familiar with it. Next, the court moved onto Maxwell and held that it did not apply here.
Maxwell calls for a “remedy-focused” analysis in determining whether an individual capacity suit against a tribal official was really an individual suit or a cloaked version of an official capacity suit. Here, the plaintiffs’ complaint sought money damages, injunctive relief and declaratory relief, essentially asking that the plaintiffs become restored to the tribal membership rolls. The tribe itself was not sued, only members of Pala’s Executive Committee (including the tribal chairman), who revised enrollment ordinances which gave them power to adjust the membership as they saw fit. Subsequently, the defendants disenrolled the plaintiffs, thus commencing this legal fight. However, the court ultimately determined that the remedy being sought would ultimately operate against the tribe because only the tribal government (via the defendant tribal officers acting in an official capacity) could reverse their disenrollment, and not the individuals acting only in an individual capacity. And, as the court noted:
Although Plaintiffs challenge the motives and the findings of the [Enrollment] Committee’s individual members, the [Plaintiffs'] Complaint alleges that the Committee, acting as a governing body, disenrolled Plaintiffs. ‘Without more, it is difficult to view the suit against the officials as anything other than a suit against the Band.’ [Citations omitted].
Plaintiffs called upon the court to make a tribe do something that Santa Clara Pueblo and well-established Ninth Circuit precedent says courts cannot do: interfere with tribal membership disputes.
Conclusion
So Maxwell was not what I was hoping it to be in this case, and once again the disenrolled do not get their day in court. However, this is the Southern District’s opinion; it remains to be seen how Maxwell establishes itself in the Northern, Eastern, and Central Districts.
On July 10, 2012, the plaintiffs and the United States have stipulated (i.e., came to an agreement) to extended deadlines for filing the opposition to the plaintiff’s motion to enforce judgment that was highlighted in the recent news story regarding the Chukchansi casino. The United States requested, and the plaintiff’s agreed, that to adequately prepare a defense and gather appropriate documentation, their deadline for filing an opposition to the plaintiff’s motion be extended to September 7, 2012. The plaintiff’s reply will be filed by September 28, 2012.
On vacation this week. But while I’m away I thought of something.
On this blog, and others, I have repeatedly denounced the use of banishment and disenrollment as a means for unscrupulous tribal councils and factions to get rid of members of their own community based on little more than greed, petty family strife, and plain old petulance. The so-called “Paper Genocide” — (a term I dislike, but can’t think of a replacement right this second) — has claimed thousands of Native Americans’ identities, leaving many of them without access to subsidized health care, tribal schools, various services and casino money allotments. Currently, it is one of the great legal crises that is going on in America and more people need to be aware of it. Congress must do something about it. I’ve repeated these sentiments ad nauseum.
But, out of an abundance of fairness, I must ask: has there ever been a case where someone who was disenrolled actually deserve it? Put another way, has any Indian ever been banished or disenrolled as the result of a legitimate, non-nefarious purpose? I would appreciate some historical practices and examples as well.
The thing is, however, it’s hard to disentangle disenrollments that were made AFTER the tribe’s casino was built, or any time after the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was passed. The core excuse I’ve heard to date about why tribal councils want to disenroll their own members it that they’re just correcting their paper work. Of course, the retort is that why should tribes care now what their paperwork says when they’ve had decades prior to the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to correct it. At this point, it’s almost as if any disenrollment made after IGRA was passed is presumed to be tainted.
But, if there’s another way of looking at it, please clue me in.
Marc Benjamin of the Fresno Bee wrote an interesting piece regarding a new lawsuit filed in the Northern District of California against Picayune Rancheria.
This lawsuit is grounded in the 1979 Tillie Hardwick litigation (my post here) that effectively un-terminated several California rancherias from Congress’ California Rancheria Act of 1958. Any member of a terminated tribe can regain federal recognition if they can show that they (or their ancestors) was a member of the original Tillie Hardwick class that filed suit against the United States back in the 70′s/80′s; and, demonstrating that at the time of the Hardwick settlement, at least one class member from the Rancheria owned real property within the original Rancheria boundaries.
That is what the plaintiffs are doing in this case, claiming that their ancestor, Maryan Ramirez, was a Chukchansi Indian who was an original class member, was the only person entitled to establish the tribal government of Chukchansi. However, when Ramirez died, her family declined to negotiate with the BIA over how to re-establish the tribal government. Then, another family stepped in and negotiated with the BIA — whose ancestor was not an original Tillie Hardwick class member — and established the rancheria we all know today. Now, Ramirez’s descendants have filed suit to assert their rightful claim to the government.
I have no clue why they waited so long, but this will prove to be interesting.
The motion to enforce the judgment was filed on June 7, 2012 along with several, voluminous exhibits that I haven’t had time to sort through yet.
A new book has hit the shelves and I suggest you take a look at it. I know I will, eventually. Not just for what it says, but for what it probably won’t say: the Indian Civil Rights Act is completely useless to any unfairly disenrolled Indian seeking to regain their tribal citizenship.
As I’ve hit on in this post, and this post, the only remedy available under ICRA is habeas corpus, which many attorneys have tried to get creative in squeezing banishment and disenrollment under the definition of criminal custody to no avail. Even though the ICRA ports a version of our Due Process clause into Indian Country, the SCOTUS decision in Santa Clara v. Pueblo puts an end to anyone challenging a tribe’s definition of membership, allowing tribal councils to disenroll anyone they want.
I definitely want to read this book. Some serious scholarship went into compiling these essays and it will be interesting to see what the results are. The thesis of the book review cited above is simply this: “Together, this set of essays argues that the extension of rights to the American Indian tribes has adapted well, so long as each tribe has been free to interpret the Act within its own traditions.”
Well, there’s a problem with that. Treating your own people with complete disdain as you strip them of their citizenship out of petty family politics in order to reap larger casino profits isn’t something I’d call a tribe’s “traditions.” In fact, it’s fairly obvious that it is non-Indian. Judging by the text of the review, some chapters attempt to paint a rosy picture of tribal self-determination while others don’t shy away from ICRA failures to make any positive dent in Indian Country. Even if Indian Country has benefited somewhat from having ICRA around — what would have it been like without ICRA? — the reality is anything but a sense of “Mission Accomplished.” And after 40 years of ICRA, Indian Country has yet to be separated from the volumes of racially insensitive case law that keeps Indian Law jurisprudence in a state of profoundly embarrassing infancy, hindering any hope of Native Americans to be fully treated to the equal protection of the laws with complete and total due process.
Always a controversial topic, tribal sovereign immunity is complicated. Most immunities law usually revolve around complexities that one blog post or law review comment probably couldn’t succinctly summarize with satisfaction. Most immunities are codified in statute. California, for example, has the California Tort Claims Act, and the United States has the Federal Tort Claims Act. Tribal sovereign immunity, for the most part, is not codified by any statute, but remains within the realm of federal common law, fleshed out by judicial opinions only.
This blog focuses on the “broad strokes” of tribal sovereign immunity, a general outline. Those that read my articles on tribal disenrollment will know that I briefly covered the topic in my first article. That article summarized the doctrine but did not explore its origins. This one will.
A brief definition of tribal sovereign immunity will start us out. Essentially, an Indian tribe is immune from suit (i.e., cannot be sued) unless Congress says otherwise. Questions arise from this statement. How is an Indian tribe sovereign? The United States has sovereignty within its own lands and the fifty states that comprise our republic have sovereignty within their own borders. Indian tribes reside within the borders of the United States and within individual states, and sometimes spanning the borders of neighboring states and foreign nations. Tribal sovereignty overrides a state’s authority (with exceptions to places like California that exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction over Indian lands via Public Law 280). How did this happen? Who said Indian tribes have any sovereignty from which to override the sovereignty of states and impose its own customs upon those who step onto their lands? The United States Supreme Court.
Congress, too, was provided with constitutional authority to regulate commerce among the various states, foreign nations, and the “Indian tribes.” The basis of this Indian Commerce Clause was explored by the Marshall Trilogy.
The Marshall Trilogy
Indian tribes existed before the United States. The United States conquered the Indian tribes, thus ending their dominion over their own lands. However, the United States Supreme Court recognized their pre-existing sovereignty and realized that, despite their conquered status, Indian tribes were unique, but they would be dependent upon the nation that conquered them for basic needs. Thus, the idea that Indian tribes were “domestic dependent nations” was born. Also, their immunity from suit derived from this sovereignty that was lesser than federal sovereignty, but greater than a state’s.
In the early 19th Century, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, authored a set of three opinions that later became known as the Marshall Trilogy, effectively creating tribes’ sovereignty. A break-down of the cases goes like this:
Johnson v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823), recognized that Indian tribes were conquered by the European powers and lost whatever rights they had to owning the land. Through various wars, the United States took over European possessions within the United States, thus gaining full title to the land, rendering tribal claims over the land useless.
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831), established that Indian tribes were “denominated domestic dependent nations” who had a different culture and society much like foreign nations, but depended upon the United States for their survival. However, tribes’ sovereign immunity was acknowledged as pre-existing that of the United States.
Worcestor v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832), held that the United States, and not any individual State, held ultimate authority over the regulation of Indian tribes.
Immunity
Now that tribes were sovereign nations, their immunity from suit had to be established by Supreme Court case law as well. In prior articles, I’ve established that immunity was an assumption (Turner v. United States, 248 U.S. 354 (1919)), but as the law developed, it was accepted as a formal doctrine of law. See United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 309 U.S. 506 (1940). It wasn’t until Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998), nearly 80 years after United States Fidelity, that the Supreme Court took umbrage with the so-called doctrine:
At one time, the doctrine of tribal immunity from suit might have been thought necessary to protect nascent tribal governments from encroachments by States. In our interdependent and mobile society, however, tribal immunity extends beyond what is needed to safeguard tribal self-governance. This is evident when tribes take part in the Nation’s commerce. Tribal enterprises now include ski resorts, gambling, and sales of cigarettes to non-Indians. In this economic context, immunity can harm those who are unaware that they are dealing with a tribe, who do not know of tribal immunity, or who have no choice in the matter, as in the case of tort victims.
However, until Congress says otherwise (remember, they retain sole discretion to regulate commerce amongst the Indian tribes), the doctrine of sovereign immunity continues and has expanded, despite judicial frowning.
Is it a perfect rule of law? By all means, no, neither for Indian tribes who are sometimes protected by the doctrine nor non-Indians who have run up against sovereign immunity whose suits probably should have been heard before a trier of fact. However, the deeds of the past remain ever prominent in the present. The United States owes the Native American a duty to provide for their basic needs. From what I’ve seen, the United States has performed with bare minimum of effort and outright negligence. Violent crime runs rampant in the poorest of Indian reservations on a per capita scale that dwarfs major cities. Alcoholism, suicide, and rape are the plagues of 21st Century Native America. Last but not least, poverty. Don’t let Indian gaming fool you.
So, in conclusion, this is a brief overview of tribal sovereign immunity and its problems.
In writing these articles the first challenge I ran into was whether to write them at all; the methods by which tribes have used to expel members has been questionable and on the surface, downright despicable. I struggled hard to come up with a counter argument, one that would allow me to step into the shoes of those performing the disenrolling, to give disenrolling gaming tribes the benefit of the doubt and see both sides of the issue. I think the only real success that came of these efforts is that I just made the effort. Whether or not the counter arguments those efforts engendered are persuasive or not is another story. But looking back at these articles I knew I had the right idea in writing them because I was simply curious as to how this issue has been playing out in California courts. I didn’t always like what I found but my curiosity has been satisfied.
Furthermore, one thing that I must point out is my own bias. I want you to know where my opinions come from so you know that I’m just another person with an opinion on tribal disenrollments; here’s the research that I’ve done and these are my conclusions, but they do not have to be your own. I want you to think for yourself, whether what I’ve seen through my eyes is right or wrong when viewed through yours and if so, then why? Or why not? Above all, I want you to know my stance on this issue so it can provoke your own thoughts and research so that you might inform yourselves on what’s going on. If there’s an argument that I’m not making then what is it?
So, here are my biases:
I’m a capitalist. I love the idea of living in a country where you can go from rags to riches; all you need is determination and a strong work ethic. I think that the idea of having a free market capitalist system is one of the requisites of sustaining a democracy. I love the idea of having a group of people who’ve known poverty all their lives could suddenly get together with nothing but an idea, hope, hard work and make their world better. Indian gaming didn’t just appear overnight. It started out as small bingo hall operations or card rooms in places off the beaten track, off the main roads where people would just go to play games. Look where it went. I love knowing that kind of thing can happen in America. I think it’s what America is all about and who better to cash in on the American Dream than the First Americans themselves? Isn’t it about time? After all the stereotypes in a million cowboy and Indian movies, all the sports mascots that demeaned rather than honor, after living hard lives on a reservation with little to no basic necessities, and now Indian people can have their chance to earn a little bit for themselves. Only in America.
I am of Native American descent. My people were Ah-Wah-Nee-Chee, the First People that lived in Yosemite Valley back when it was called Ah-Wah-Nee. The Ah-Wah-Nee-Chee were a mix of Paiute and possibly Mono Indians who came over to Yosemite from the areas that straddle the California and Nevada border. In the late 19th Century, the last leader of the people, Ten-ie-ya (Tenaya), resisted white domination as best he could but was ultimately unsuccessful. He and his people were forced out by the Mariposa Battalion and made to live in reservations. One day he returned along with his people but by then the State of California had asserted its guardianship over the tourist attraction that Yosemite was quickly becoming, all the way up until the National Park Service assumed responsibility. Since this time Tenaya’s descendents have struggled to gain federal recognition and those descendents are scattered about different groups, each with their own opinions, viewpoints, agendas, and strategies. Each group or faction has not been cordial with others; as you can imagine, numerous fights have broken out over the greater part of the 20th century and 21st century as to who really is a Yosemite Indian and who isn’t. I’ve seen firsthand the meetings where different sides of my family have fought and bickered with each other. I’ve learned that Indian politics is family politics, and if you’re familiar with just how dysfunctional a family can be you can guess just how mature a tribal government can act. Sometimes there’s outright name calling, threatening, and belittling. I have seen these things within my own people and while I have not personally seen these things with other Indian nations I can take a pretty good guess and say that Indian politics is the same wherever you go. If you and your family are not liked by another family, and that family is in control of the tribal council then your life is going to get complicated real fast. It doesn’t sound like conduct fit for the operation of a small government.
Now, add a multi-billion dollar enterprise into this mix. Add in a sudden influx of money into an area that for the last 100 years has seen nothing but poverty. No running water, no electricity, no standardized housing, no jobs, substandard health care, little to no scholarship money for Indian students, no cars – no future. Indian gaming came along at the perfect time.
I understand history: to the victor go the spoils; the weak suffer the strong, etc. We were a conquered people and our lives were dictated by those that conquered us. We weren’t treated fairly; we were targets for extinction and then moods shifted and they wanted to “re-organize” us into mini-republics to promote self-reliance, and then the mood shifted again when they wanted to set us “free” by terminating our ward status and making us go out into world that we were never prepared for, and now it’s back to self-reliance even if only somewhat. I understand the history and I understand why it had to be that way; I never agreed with it, I think it was unfair and genocidal in some places but I understand. But I also understand that what goes around comes around. The people that were never thought to amount to anything, these former “savages” would get organized enough to come up with a way to make their people rich, to stop the poverty and Indian gaming did just that.
I support Indian gaming and I support tribal sovereignty, but there is a terrible irony that has attached itself to both concepts.
Greed or Growing Pains?
So, greed or growing pains? How about both? I present to you the clearest expression of my opinion on this matter with all the research I’ve conducted and the things that I’ve seen coming out of Indian Country. Indian tribes who use gaming as a means of self-reliance in a negative way towards their own people are suffering growing pains because their greed is making them grow into something that these Indians were not before. They are growing into tyrants.
Tyranny is not only a strong word but it’s also overused, so my use of it here hopefully has some resonance because by now, if you’ve read the articles, then you know that I wouldn’t use it carelessly. Also know that tyranny comes in degrees; you can have a lesser tyrant or perhaps even a benign one but you can also have great tyrants depending upon how much power is wielded and how that power is executed. I believe that gaming tribes that have disenrolled their own for the sake of higher gaming revenue allotments have acted tyrannically; the degree of tyranny is yet to be adjudged but I think we can agree that disenrollment under those reasons requires some minimum standard of autocracy.
The case for greed is well developed by now. Almost every disenrolled Indian that has been interviewed has lobbied this opinion. The legal community is also aware of the attitude. Previously, in Lamere v. Superior Court, the presiding judge remarked: “Where large sums of money are involved, however, it has long been recognized that the potential for corruption always exists.” (Lamere v. Superior Court (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1068, fn. 10 [31 Cal.Rptr. 3d 880].) Reaching back to Santa Clara Pueblo, Justice White noted in his dissent:
[A witness before the Senate Subcommittee concerning the Indian Civil Rights Act] complained “[the] people get governors and sometimes they get power hungry and then the people have no rights at all,” to which Senator Ervin responded: “‘Power hungry’ is a pretty good shorthand statement to show why the people of the United States drew up a Constitution. They wanted to compel their rulers to stay within the bounds of that Constitution and not let that hunger for power carry them outside it.” (Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (1978) 436 U.S. 49, 81 [98 S.Ct. 1670, 56 L.Ed.2d 106] (dis. Opn. of White, J.).)
The case for growing pains is less developed. On March 2nd, 2009 I came across news that the Chukchansi Indians who ran the Chukchansi Gold Casino were disenrolling hundreds of members. When reading the article I came across the reasons behind the disenrollment:
[The issue of disenrollments] is already tearing our tribe apart. Should we take the path of summarily disenrolling members from our Tribe, our Tribe could become the example of greed that gaming has engendered from coast to coast. This kind of press directly affects our Casino business, and contributes to the already significant backlash against Indian gaming in California and across the U.S…
Instead let’s practice the traditions of our people: respect, restraint and generosity in unraveling years of poor enrollment practices so that all people of Chukchansi blood are dealt with fairly.
What “poor enrollment practices” has to do with ancient Indian customs that predate modern, BIA imposed enrollment regulations is beyond this author. A sharper quote comes from a Chukchansi council member: “We didn’t disenroll anybody. We just corrected our paperwork.” (Fagan, TribesToss Out Members in High-Stakes Conflict, S.F. Chronicle (Apr. 20, 2008), p. A1.) This issue is dealt with in depth in the article that I wrote on the subject.
And then there’s Carol Goldberg’s quote: “Some of the human drama is being amplified…the tribes concede their sovereign authority if they talk to the non-Indian world, so they don’t say much, which just leaves opponents to do much of the talking.” I can’t completely disagree with this conclusion. As you’ve noted from these articles, tribal sovereign immunity is a precarious theory, resting upon thin ice, its very survival uninsured from judicial review or congressional abrogation. Creative attorneys look for anything and everything they can use to make the case that an Indian tribe has voluntarily conceded its immunity from suit. As legal advice, keeping quiet is the best practice. Furthermore, Indian tribes don’t have to say anything at all, not because it’s good for maintaining sovereign immunity, but because they simply don’t have to. No one other than Congress has any authority to foist liability on an Indian tribe. Tribes can effectively scoff at any request by local and state governments for anything from consent to be sued, cooperation with state law, serve an arrest warrant, or tax their cigarettes. Aside from exceptions such as gaming compacts with the state, tribes are sovereign nations even if just “dependent domestic” ones and do not have to talk to anyone if they don’t want to.
That said, silence isn’t always golden. An explanation for actions concerning tribal disenrollments after major influxes of cash is more than necessary at this point, and we are in need for something beyond redressing prior enrollment problems or correcting the paperwork. There’s a fundamental violation of due process that may be taking place in Indian Country and it’s being perpetuated against Indians by Indians. The basis for disenrollment sometimes amount to no more than a rumors concerning the disenrolled’s family ancestry. Sometimes it could just be simple mathmatics: the less people in the tribe, the more money for everyone else – what we see in the news are excuses that cloak the underlying unfairness. Why should the United States tolerate such a gross violation of basic rights to American citizens? The answer seems so simple but as you can see from the underlying legal theories, Indian Country and Indians themselves are legal curiosities; sometimes the laws of our country apply and sometimes they don’t. However, in the situation of the disenrolled, an explanation of tribal council behavior would be nice. If a tribe is worried about waiving its immunity by explaining its actions then it should be more concerned about leaving their “opponents to do much of the talking” than keeping quiet, because those opponents are seeking redress to the one authoritative body that can do something about the problem. That body is the United States Congress. Whether an explanation of this magnitude would constitute a waiver is mildly ambiguous and fundamentally, (and ironically to some) an explanation for a tribe’s actions may actually mitigate their loss of social currency.
In the end, I leave the reader to decide whether Indian nations have conducted themselves properly. The amount of materials that can be found on the issue of tribal disenrollment are far vaster than what was cited in this article. Indeed, many of the best sources on this issue are the comments that Indians themselves have left on my articles. Those are the real stories of substance and they can provide much more profound insight than I could with just citations to news articles and court cases. It also to them that I dedicate these series of articles along with my best wishes on one day being inducted back into their tribal nations of origin.
If there are any true solutions to be found to this issue then they will not come from an American courtroom. Courts are bound to follow the principle of stare decisis, and will thus uphold court cases that have gone before them – court cases that have cast Indians in a subordinate role in American society. If there is a solution to be had it would have to come from Congress:
…tribes have been given broad power to order their own affairs without regard for Eurocentric mores. To the extent that Congress has not chosen to provide an effective external means of enforcement for the rights of tribal members, the omission is for Congress to reconsider if and when it chooses. (Lamere v. Superior Court, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1063, fn. 2.)
I support Indian gaming. It is probably one of the most genius ideas that the Native Americans ever conceived to lift themselves out of poverty. With casino revenue rolling in tribes are now in a position to provide for themselves in a way never thought possible. I just don’t see how disenrollments serve that purpose.
These articles are at their conclusion. As stated previously, was I right in my conclusion? Wrong? Both? Why? Why not? Do you think this issue is worthy of further research on your part? Have you already done more research? What did that lead you to? Never stop asking questions about how you perceive an issue and how you conclude on an issue. If you live your life questioning the things around you, you will never stop learning and you will always grow. I hope this is a lifestyle you find worth copying.
Thank you for your time.
————————–
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Tribal Sovereign Immunity
Turner v. United States (1919) 248 U.S. 354
U.S. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (1940) 309 U.S. 506
Kiowa Tribe v. Manufacturing Tech., Inc. (1998) 523 U.S. 751
In the last article, I examined the federal and California state cases that highlighted the failure of the Indian Civil Rights Act to find an adequate remedy to the disenrolled Indians. This article will highlight the next federal statute, Title 28 of the United States Code, section 1360(a), better known to its adherents, followers, and enemies as Public Law 280.
Brief History Behind Public Law 280
The relationship between Native Americans and the United States government is tense, to say the least. Beginning in 1949, the American government moved away from a prior era that favored Indian self-government:
In 1949 the Hoover Commission issued its Report on Indian Affairs, recommending an about-face in federal policy: “complete integration” of Indians should be the goal so that Indians would move “into the mass of the population as full, taxpaying citizens.” …Though now formally repudiated by the federal government, the memory of congressional committees and bureaucrats in Washington “terminating” the existence of hundreds of tribes across Indian country stands as a chilling reminder to Indian peoples that Congress can unilaterally decide to extinguish the special status and rights of tribes without Indian consent. (Getches et. al., Cases and Materials on Federal Indian Law (2005) p. 201.)
A quote from Senator Arthur Watkins provides the intent behind the Termination policies:
In view of the historic policy of Congress favoring freedom for the Indians, we may well expect future Congresses to continue to endorse the principle that “as rapidly as possible” we should end the status of Indians as wards of the Government and grant them all the rights and prerogatives pertaining to American citizenship… Following in the footsteps of the Emancipation Proclamation…I see the following words emblazoned in letters of fire above the heads of the Indians – “These people shall be free!”
In short, in the name of liberty, the trust relationship between Indians and the United States was over, the guardian ward position that the United States had assumed over Indian tribes was over, and tribal sovereignty was “effectively ended.” The government cut checks to individual Indians for the value of their land which often was not very little money and said nothing for the loss of federal benefits and protections.
In keeping with the tone of setting the Indians “free” from federal interference, Congress passed Public Law 280, a federal law that conferred civil and criminal jurisdictions from federal oversight to state oversight. The law only applied in certain states; California being one of them.
But what about Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez and its proclamation that inter-tribal matters are matters left to tribes? Was that decision abrogated upon the passage of PL-280?
PL-280 and California State Courts
In the last article, I briefly surveyed Lamere v. Superior Court of Riverside. In that case, members of the Pechanga Indian Reservation were disenrolled “on the general ground that the ancestor from whom [the disenrolled] claimed descent was not one of the ‘original Pechanga people’ and her descendants therefore did not qualify as Band members.” The disenrolled brought their action in state court because Pechanga lacked a tribal court of their own; their basis of finding that the court had jurisdiction to hear the case rested on PL-280′s grant of state civil jurisdiction over Indian tribes. The court had this to say:
…in light of [Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez], Public Law 280 cannot be viewed as a general grant of jurisdiction to state courts to determine intratribal disputes. …this provision “seems to have been primarily intended to redress the lack of adequate Indian forums for resolving private legal disputes between reservation Indians, and between Indians and other private citizens… In our view, [the current case] is not a “private legal dispute between reservation Indians,” but rather goes tot he heart of tribal sovereignty. (Lamere v. Superior Court of Riverside (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1064 [31 Cal.Rptr.3d 880]).
In the Lamere quote, the court cited Bryan v. Itasca County, a United States Supreme Court case that has been foundational in interpreting the grant of civil jurisdiction to state courts. In Bryan, the issue was whether PL-280 would allow “the States to tax reservation Indians except insofar as taxation is expressly excluded by the terms of [PL-280].” (Bryan v. Itasca County (1976) 426 U.S. 373, 375 [96 S.Ct. 2102, 48 L.Ed.2d 710]). Citing Bryan, the Court of Appeal of California held that:
…the Supreme Court explicitly denied that Public Law 280 confers jurisdiction in teh states over the tribes themselves: “[PL-280] itself refutes such an inference: there is notably absent any conferral of state jurisdiction over the tribes themselves.” California courts are in accord. “No case been cited to us, and we have found none, which concludes or even suggests that [PL-280] conferred on California jurisdiction over the Indians…” (Ackerman v. Edwards (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 946, 954 [17 Cal.Rptr.3d 517]).
As you can see, Santa Clara‘s holding is left intact because matters of tribal sovereignty can never be adjudged or scrutinized by a state government. That doesn’t make the situation better for disenrolled Indians, however. All it means is that they are denied yet another means of contesting their disenrollment.
Beating a Dead Horse
The majority of my conclusion is in the last article, but for now, I would like to reflect on the past few months and the words that I have written thus far.
If these articles have taught you anything it’s that tribal sovereign immunity bars courts the jurisdiction necessary to hear these cases and try them on their merits. Without jurisdiction, courts will never be able to use their equitable discretion in determining whether the disenrolled Indians were unfairly cast out or whether their disenrollments were proper exercises of sovereign matters.
There is slight comfort in knowing that tribes’ sovereign immunity remains intact. Not all tribal council decisions concerning members are negative. Not all membership issues are disenrollment issues. Although I want to develop this theme in the conclusion, I do want to take the time to say that I fully support what little sovereignty that Indian tribes have left. Being Native American means being in peril: precious rights often hang by threads and similar threads are all that keep the swords dangling above the heads of Indians from breaking.
I wrote these articles because I had questions concerning the disenrollments. I wanted to know whether the disenrolled sought their day in court, what past precedent the judges were using in making their decisions and what those decisions said. My curiosity was rewarded though I am not that happy for it. I didn’t always like what I found – matter of fact, I hardly ever “liked” what I found but my curiosity has been sated.
My biggest fear is that these articles are nothing more than an exercise in futility. Over the months I have written four articles all basically saying the same thing. The disenrolled have nothing to protect them from their tribal councils. For months I feel that I have beaten a dead horse, constantly blogging, quoting court cases and statutes, and always coming back to the same spot: the courts have no jurisdiction. Always the lack of jurisdiction.
And what of the courts themselves? Eternally bound by past precedent, whether its the United States Supreme Court or individual federal and state courts, the courts carry forward the legacy of racist and discriminatory policies that have already died out in many ways in our society but courts are forced to carry them forward. It has become very apparent to me that the Judicial Branch of the United States government is the worst place to fight for an Indian’s rights. For far too long the disenrolled have essentially been barking up the wrong tree. I can’t blame the courts for that, though; it’s their job to follow the code of stare decisis. Courts need guidance from a different precedent.
It appears that only Congress can give those rights…or take them away.
——–
This is the last substantive article on the issue of tribal disenrollments. If you wish to end your journey here then feel free to do so; there is no more law to quote, no more statutes to read and no more history that I feel is relevant to this issue. The next article is merely one large conclusion and it’s purely optional – I feel like I’ve kept you here long enough.
I would like to take this time to thank every one of my readers who have patiently waited for each article to come out. Sorry about the delay between articles – law school has kept me extremely busy, so I hope you understand. In particular, I would like to thank the disenrolled Native Americans who have stopped by to read and offer their two cents on the whole affair. I would like to dedicate these articles to you and along with my thanks, wish you the best and hope that you one day get the justice that many of you, whether you are in California or any other state, deserve. You will always be an Indian, no matter what any person says and no one can take that away from you.
A new Fresno Bee article concerning Chukchansi Gold’s disenrollment of hundreds of members has stated:
Tribal Chairman [of Chukchansi] says the disenrollments were necessary to correct past membership mistakes and had nothing to do with increasing the wealth of remaining tribal members.
“We had to find out if they were qualified Chukchansi,” he said. “It was a process and procedure that had to be followed.”
In my research on tribal disenrollments I’ve only dealt with court cases and news articles. This is not the first time that I recall hearing something from the other side – the disenrolling side – on any due process procedure given to those who are about to be disenrolled. However, some clarity was added when looking at a February 2005 newsletter published by Chukchansi (provided by the Fresno Bee):
Feb 2005 Newsletter Excerpt
The newsletter then went to discuss a larger issue concerning a recall election and various political rivalries within the tribe. An interesting sentence:
[The issue of disenrollments] is already tearing our tribe apart. Should we take the path of summarily disenrolling members from our Tribe, our Tribe could become the example of greed that gaming has engendered from coast to coast. This kind of press directly affects our Casino business, and contributes to the already significant backlash against Indian gaming in California and across the U.S…
Instead let’s practice the traditions of our people: respect, restraint and generosity in unraveling years of poor enrollment practices so that all people of Chukchansi blood are dealt with fairly.
Poor enrollment practices? Membership files being lost, stolen or destroyed? Is there more to the disenrollment issue than just the “evil council” perpetuating disenrollment after disenrollment for the sake of cronyism and greed?
In my own life I have seen just how easily it is for a tribal government (or one’s pretending to be) to misplace files. I was never aware of all the facts at the time so I can’t accuse anyone of deliberately destroying or losing files that could prove detrimental to their own positions or authority however the prevailing, unofficial opinion was that the documents were lost to either intentionally or negligently. So it doesn’t surprise me that such a large tribe (or at least not as large as it used to be) would have trouble holding onto their documents.
Somewhat related to this subject is the issue of finding geneaological records. The basis of many enrollment and distribution lists were census records taken in the 19th century – a time period where America could have cared less about Indian people and would much rather have them put to the sword or sent to boarding schools. As such, documenting one’s roots are next to impossible. In my family tree there are numerous references made to misspelled names, vague entries, or simply put, no records exist at all. Also, numerous members of my family were misidentified as Miwuks when they were really Paiutes.
Two questions emerge from this turmoil: 1) Did the census takers interview the Indians directly to get their information? or; 2) Did they ask other Indians. If the answer to the second question is yes then that raises all sorts of issues. How can you rely off second hand information for anything important like a census?
Compounding the problem further is that Indians in those days didn’t keep such records or have birth certificates. My great-grandmother was born in 1915; my mother and grandmother said she has one but the State of California can’t find it.
The sad truth is that researching one’s Indian ancestry is heavily dependent upon the shoddy research of 19th century census takers. One wonders if they were biased against Indians given the attitudes of Manifest Destiny prevalent in the American West which would aid their motivations to conduct as shallow research as possible, just enough to get by and move on to the next assignment. Or maybe they did try but no Indian would talk to the white man – they certainly had their reasons. Whatever the reason – tracing Indian lineage in the American West, particularly around Nevada and California is very difficult.
The trouble with documents when it comes to Indians is that despite all the research holes the government bases its conclusions on who is a legally recognized Indian and who isn’t on them. The Indians took care of each other; they took in people from other bands for the sake of survival and community. Despite the weakness of documentation the Indian communities made up for that weakness by enrolling together as one tribal government. It seems that the lack of paper evidence was disregarded in favor of communal ties and family relationships – the type of bond that only blood and friendship can bring. And like the newsletter points out, the more people on the roll list then the more money they got from the BIA.
So if the tribes needed their enrollment numbers up at one time then why do they need them reduced now? What factors would justify the tribes to get serious about determining who is a member of their tribe and who isn’t? What role does having a casino play in determining whether the membership lists needed to be reduced or expanded?
Whether the “evil council” stereotype holds up to scrutiny, I must conclude that given the wrongs committed against the Indians and the reaction to those wrongs – i.e. community building as a means of survival and friendship – the use of disenrollment as a function of protecting the tribal community is a gross farce. I find such excuses by this tribal council or any tribal council to that effect to be putting up the window dressing of due process when it smells of something different.
For more information on the tribal disenrollments in California, please see my article series on the subject:
