State-Tribal Relations
Case in Brief: Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians
The Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community, located in Southern California, argued that Inyo county welfare officials exceeded their jurisdiction in executing a search warrant of the tribe's casino personnel records in order to investigate a possible incidence of state welfare fraud by three casino employees. The tribe sought to have the actions of the county stopped and sought a declaration by the court that the tribe, as a sovereign government, cannot be subject to state law without consent or an express grant of authority to the state by Congress. The tribe based its claims on federal statute 42 U.S.C. 1983 (section 1983), which is designed to provide a remedy to individuals who have had their constitutional rights violated by state or federal officials. In May 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the tribe is not qualified to bring a suit against Inyo County, California and county officials under section 1983 to vindicate its right to sovereignty and to be free of state criminal processes.
Q. What was the case about?
A. In March 1999, the Inyo County Department of Health and Human Services received information indicating that three employees of the Paiute Palace Casino, a gaming enterprise owned and operated by the tribe, had failed to report casino earnings on their applications for state welfare benefits. The employees failed to respond to county requests that they explain the discrepancies between their casino earnings and earnings reported on their welfare application forms.
In early 2000, the Inyo County District Attorney's Office asked the casino for the employment records for the three employees explaining that it was conducting a possible welfare fraud investigation. The tribe refused to release the employment records due to its privacy policy that prohibits release of records without the employee's consent. The District Attorney obtained a search warrant from the Inyo County Superior Court, which authorized a search of the casino's payroll records for the three employees. The warrant was executed over the objections of tribal officials who argued that the state court did not have jurisdiction to authorize a search of the payroll records due to the tribe's sovereign status.
In July 2000, the District Attorney's Office asked the tribe for the employment records of six other casino employees. Again, the tribe refused on grounds that its privacy policy did not allow the release of such records without employee consent, but agreed to accept a copy of the employee's signed welfare application as evidence of consent. (The application requires applicants to sign a statement acknowledging that employee records of individuals applying for public assistance are subject to review by county officials.) The District Attorney refused the offer, based on a belief that the county was not allowed to release this information. There is no federal regulation or requirement however, that prevents the county from releasing this information to the tribe. This conflict potentially could have been avoided altogether had the county understood that federal law would have allowed them to comply with the tribe's request.
In an attempt to resolve this dispute and prevent future searches, the tribe filed suit in federal district court against the district attorney, the sheriff and the county. The tribe asked the court to declare that the tribe, as a sovereign nation, is immune from state process under federal law and that the state does not have authority to seize tribal records. The tribe also argued that by acting beyond the scope of its jurisdiction, the county violated the tribe's fourth amendment rights (right to be free of unwarranted searches and seizures) and violated the tribe's right to self-government.
The tribe argues that the federal common law of Indian affairs and 42 U.S.C. 1983, which is designed to protect individual civil rights, support its claims against the county and county officials.
Q. What did the U.S. District Court say?
A. In late 2000, the federal district court dismissed the tribe's complaint on the grounds that the tribe's sovereign status does not automatically prohibit searches and seizures of the casino's personnel information.
Q. What did the U.S. Court of Appeals say?
A. The tribe appealed the matter to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which reversed the decision of the lower court on the basis that the execution of the county search warrant interferes with the tribe's right of self-government. The court further reasoned that Ninth Circuit precedent prohibits state jurisdiction over a tribe, absent a waiver by the tribe or an express grant of authority by Congress. The court recognized the state's interest in investigating possible welfare fraud, but noted that the state should pursue less intrusive means for obtaining the necessary information. The court ruled in favor of the tribe, finding that section 1983 is an appropriate ground for this claim because the statute is designed to protect an individual's 4th amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizure, which is within the scope of section 1983.
The county appealed this ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Q. What did the Supreme Court say?
A. Upon review of the county's appeal, the Supreme Court's primary focus was determining whether the tribe's complaint is actionable under section 1983. Section 1983 provides a legal remedy for "citizens and other person(s)" to seek relief from a person, acting on behalf of the state or federal government, who has deprived them of federally protected rights. The question for the Court is whether or not the tribe qualifies as a "person" under section 1983.
The tribe argues that state governments have historically infringed upon the tribes' federally protected rights and in order to protect against such infringements, the Court should interpret section 1983 to include actions brought by Indian tribes. While the tribe does not assert that the county lacked probable cause to issue the warrant, the tribe does claim that the execution of the warrant was unlawful based solely on the fact that the tribe is a sovereign nation and is not subject to state laws. The Court rejects the tribe's claim on the basis that section 1983 was not designed to protect the tribe's sovereign immunity against state criminal investigations and rejects the notion that the tribe qualifies as a "person" eligible to sue under the statute.
The Court also rejects the tribe's assertion that its claims against the county and county officials are supported by federal common law of Indian affairs, due to the fact that it does not explain exactly what law establishes the tribe's sovereign right to be free from state criminal processes.
The Court vacated the decision of the Ninth Circuit on the grounds that the tribe failed to establish which federal law supports the tribe's claims against the county and county officials. The case was sent back to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings based on this rationale.
Q. What does this ruling mean for other states and tribes?
A. The ruling in this case will set a precedent regarding a tribe's ability to protect against state interference in internal tribal affairs and has a direct impact on a tribe's ability to exercise its sovereignty and right to self-government. The Court's ruling does not definitively clarify the extent to which tribes must comply with state criminal proceedings however, thereby contributing to the fact that cross-jurisdictional issues often times cause confusion for both the states and tribes. Finding ways to communicate and collaborate can produce benefits for both state and tribal governments while reducing the instances in which the parties must look to the courts to resolve their disputes. State and tribal officials may wish to work together to ensure that state and county employees understand tribal sovereignty, to establish institutionalized channels of communication between state and tribal officials, and establish inter-governmental agreements to handle a variety of cross-jurisdictional issues which can provide guidance for state and tribal officials and improve the tenor of state-tribal relations.
Case Citation:
Inyo County, California Et. Al. v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, 538 U.S. ___ (2003) For More Information:
Contact Andrea Wilkins of NCSL's State-Tribal Relations Project at 303-856-1558 or State-Tribal Relations Program.
 Return to Case in Brief Menu page
Return to the State-Tribal Relations Home page
|
