The United States Supreme Court has recently handed down rulings in two important cases involving American Indian tribes. Observers of the Court and leaders in Indian Country are still reviewing the decisions, and analyzing their implications for tribal sovereignty and governmental responsibilities.
In a split vote of five to four the Court decided in United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe that the federal government could be held responsible for the maintenance and condition of land and property held in trust for Indian tribes. The Bush administration had argued that the government could not be sued for damages to property on Indian land and could only be ordered by the court to make improvements. The decision for the White Mountain Apache Tribe clears the way for the tribe to seek $14 million from the government for repairs to historic buildings of Fort Apache that have been used by the Interior Department. The ruling is significant for other Native American tribes as well, as it implies that the government is responsible for over 56 million acres of land that it holds in trust for various Indian groups.
The Court’s ruling in United States v. Navaho Nation, on the other hand, was a major blow to the Navajo Nation. In a six to three decision, the justices ruled that the Navajo could not continue with a $600 million claim for lost coal royalties that it had sought, based on claims of a conspiracy between an Interior department undersecretary and mining interests. The Court said that the Navajo could not bring a claim under the federal mineral leasing law the tribe had cited in the dispute. The three dissenting justices, however, wrote that the tribe had made a “strong showing” that the undersecretary’s actions had directly hurt their profits. Although the tribe is still examining the ruling, the outcome of this case is not expected to affect related cases against the mining industry. While the White Mountain Apache are pleased with their ruling, they expressed disappointment at the outcome of the Navajo case, saying they recognize that the Navajo are also in great need.
This mixed message is viewed by many observers as a slight departure for the current Court, which has rarely sided with Native American tribes. The fact that the Apache’s victory came by a slim one-vote margin is being cited by some indigenous people as evidence that their legal fight for recognition of their sovereign rights is still an uphill battle. They have some cause for hope, however: the Court’s order forcing the federal government to care for tribal property is considered welcome progress. And in a footnote to the Navajo ruling, the decision seems to be narrowly tailored to that particular case, implying that claims involving different minerals or more recent alleged breaches of contract might yield different outcomes.
Based on these previous cases and the Supreme Court’s history of giving states’ rights precedence over tribal sovereignty, the Rehnquist Court’s ruling on an upcoming California case concerning the San Diego County Viejas band merits great interest. The case concerns how far the reach of county and state law enforcement can extend onto reservations in investigations of off-reservation crimes, and the decision could affect every American Indian tribe in the United States. Some analysts say that the Court would not take up the case if they did not want to reverse a lower court ruling that favored Indian tribes in the matter. The case will be argued on March 31, 2003.
The case started as a problem between the Bishop Paiute-Shoshone Tribe and officials of Inyo County. The county requested employee payroll records, but the tribe’s casino refused to hand them over, despite a superior court search warrant for the documents obtained in March 2000. Casino employees dismissed the warrant and sheriff’s deputies cut a padlock of a storage building to seize the records. When the county demanded records on six more employees three months later, the tribe filed suit in federal court, claiming their sovereignty was violated.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the casino was a tribal enterprise and was immune from local warrants, searches, and seizures based on a 1953 act of Congress that gave California and other states criminal jurisdiction on tribal members, but not tribal governments. This ruling essentially meant that the tribe’s sovereignty is not subordinate to that of the state. As the case moves up to the Supreme Court the question becomes, how far the sovereignty of the tribe should extend, and how disputes between two governments should be resolved.
In a surprising turn, the states of Arizona, Montana, New Mexico, and Washington have filed briefs that side with the tribe. These states explain that they have cooperative agreements with tribes in their states that allow local law-enforcement access as needed. Tribes and tribal groups across the country are filing amicus briefs and following this case closely, nervously awaiting a ruling in May or June.
