Indian Law Update

Search Help

Advanced Search

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Superior Court, Cal. S.Ct. (Dec. 21, 2006)

Printer-friendly version

by Brad Jolly, Partner

December 22, 2006

In a 4-3 split decision, the California Supreme Court upheld the California Court of Appeals decision that Indian tribes do not have sovereign immunity against suits seeking to enforce state campaign contribution laws. Like the Court of Appeals, the State Supreme Court took an extremely odd and constitutionally questionable approach to attempt to bypass federally mandated and protected sovereign immunity. In short, the Court felt that the state's rights under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution outweigh tribes' federally guaranteed sovereign immunity in the context of political contributions.

While acknowledging that tribal sovereign immunity and tribal sovereignty are not synonymous and that tribal sovereign immunity is simply an aspect of tribal sovereignty, the Court seemed to seriously confuse the idea of sovereign immunity from suit and immunity from the exercise of state regulatory jurisdiction, arguing that a "preemption analysis" is preferred. The Court may not have understood that the preemption analysis applies to instances where states attempt to assert jurisdiction within Indian country or over Indian tribes and has nothing to do with whether a tribe is immune from suit. Even the United States Supreme Court has recognized that there are instances where state laws apply on-reservation, but that does not mean those laws can be enforced via suit against the tribe. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n. v. Citizen Band of Potawatomi, 498 U.S. 505 (1991). Applicability of the state's campaign finance laws to the tribes' conduct in this case, admittedly off-reservation, was not at issue. However, the decision would seem suggest that California is not subject to federal law.

The Court did pay lip service to the notion that application of the law and enforcement of the law are two different things and engaged in a lengthy discussion of the Supreme Court's decision in Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, 523 U.S. 751 (1998). However, the Court noticeably omitted the U.S. Supreme Court's admonition that tribal sovereign immunity "is not subject to diminution by

the States." Manufacturing Tech., 523 U.S. at 756. California is essentially attempting to do precisely what Oklahoma attempted in that case while relying on dicta in Manufacturing Technologies that the Supreme Court did not necessarily personally approve of tribal sovereign immunity. Unlike Oklahoma, however, California seems to think that invoking the Tenth Amendment will somehow protect it from the application of federal law.

The California Supreme Court's opinion smacks of a vein attempt to further elevate states' rights, in particular as it relates to Indian tribes. This battle has been waging since the State of Georgia sought to force the removal of the Cherokee and the Supreme Court had to admonish that state it has no business in Indian affairs. However, we must always remember that only evil has ever been done under the banner of states' rights: illegal removal of Indian peoples from their homes, slavery, and Jim Crow, to name a few. Today's states' rights battles have been fought more in the context of state sovereign immunity and the Eleventh Amendment, providing states with freedom to steal patents and copyrights, deny overtime pay to state employees, and discriminate in employment based on age - all with the blessing of the U.S. Supreme Court. Perhaps that is the largest irony of the California Supreme Court's decision - forcing a tribe to comply with a reporting requirement outweighs the rights of its people to intellectual property rights, protection from discrimination in employment, and its government's own employees to federally-mandated overtime. One has to question if the four justices in the majority would rule the same if faced with state immunity against discrimination, individual property rights, and overtime pay or whether it is simply a matter of not liking immunity when the state is on the other side of it.

(Go to Articles & Writings)

INDIAN LAW UPDATES

Federal Court Decides Yankton Reservation not Disestablished

The Federal Court for the District of South Dakota has held that the Yankton Sioux Reservation has not been disestablished and remains under the jurisdiction of the Tribal and federal governments. The... more »

United Nations Adopts Indigenous Rights Declaration

After 20 years of negotiations and three decades of drafts, on September 13, the United Nations General Assembly voted 143 to 4 to adopt the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The only countries... more »

Democratic Presidential Candidates Say 'No' to Prez on the Rez

All top three Democratic Presidential candidates have said they will not attend the Prez on the Rez debate to be held at the Morongo Reservation in August. Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and... more »

Supreme Court Rejects Review of Cobell Issues

Without comment, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear the Cobell plaintiffs' appeal of the removal of Judge Royce Lamberth from the case at the request of the Bush administration. In... more »