Supreme Court Avoids Tribal Immunity Question

Tribal governments can't use federal civil rights law to shield themselves from state criminal investigations, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled on Monday.

Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg threw out a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that came to the opposite conclusion more than a year ago in a case involving the Bishop Paiute Tribe of California. The tribe sought monetary damages and other relief after local law enforcement used bolt cutters to seize tribal casino records.

But the federal law cited by the tribe in its lawsuit only allows individuals -- not governments -- to sue for such an intrusion, the court concluded. "We hold that, in the situation here presented, the tribe does not qualify as a 'person' who may sue," Ginsburg wrote.

The ruling sidestepped the larger question of tribal sovereign immunity from state criminal searches and warrants, an issue that was debated heavily in competing amicus briefs. Several states and law enforcement organizations wanted the court to affirm state police powers over tribal governments but the justices didn't voice an opinion either way.

The decision nonetheless left some observers in Indian Country disappointed. Riyaz Kanji, a Michigan lawyer whose law firm drafted an amicus brief for the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and the National Indian Gaming Association (NIGA), said it leaves tribes vulnerable.

"What the court has done in the meaning is create some uncertainty in the issue," said Kanji. "States will try to press that uncertainty to their advantage."

John D. Kirby is the California attorney who represented Inyo County, the defendant in the case. He called the ruling a "significant victory" because he said it affirms the rights of state and local governments.

"It's very difficult for a law enforcement agency or state to give up its right to investigate crimes off the reservation if the evidence for that crime exists on the reservation," Kirby said.

As a practical matter, the Supreme Court freed the county government, the sheriff and the district attorney from monetary damages the tribe sought. The 9th Circuit, in a unanimous January 2002 ruling, had said the officials were liable for seizing the casino records as part of an investigation into alleged welfare fraud. The probe was eventually dropped by the county for lack of probable cause.

The dispute, however, may not be over, depending on how the tribe wants to proceed. The ruling left it up to the tribe to show whether another federal law can be used to back up its claims.

Calls to the tribe were referred to attorney Ralph LePera, who was out of the office yesterday. In an earlier interview, he called the case "a direct attack on tribal government."

The only voice of dissent was Justice John Paul Stevens who said it was "demeaning" to deny tribes the right to sue under civil rights law. "In my judgment a Native American tribe is a 'person' who may sue," he wrote, although he agreed with the majority that the tribe failed to state a valid claim.

The case, Inyo County v. Bishop Paiute Tribe, No. 02-281, was remanded back to the lower courts for further rulings.

Get the Decision:
Syllabus | Opinion [Ginsburg] | Concurrence [Stevens]

Supreme Court Briefs:
Inyo County v. Bishop Paiute Tribe Decision Below:
BISHOP PAIUTE TRIBE v. COUNTY OF INYO No. 01-15007 (January 4, 2002)

Relevant Documents:
Docket Sheet: No. 02-281 | Senate Testimony: Monty Bengochia on Supreme Court Precedents