Wilfahrt - Standing to Challenge Tribal Action

Individual members of the tribe have no standing to bring an appeal for the tribe appealing a decision of an Area Director, approving or disapproving tribal action, simply because he or she believes the ordinance is or is not in the best interest of the tribe. Dana Cassadore v. Acting Phoenix Area Director, 29 IBIA 280 (1996) citing Swab v. Sacramento Area Director, 25 IBIA 205 (1994) and Stops v. Billings Area Director, 23 IBIA 282 (1993); Kimberly Amundsen v. Minneapolis Area Director, 28 IBIA 1 (1995); Feezor v. Minneapolis Area Director, 25 IBIA 296 (1994). The fact that the appellant may allege a violation of his or her civil rights does not create standing. "Tribal courts have repeatedly been recognized as appropriate forums for the exclusive adjudication of disputes affecting important personal and property interests of both Indians and non-Indians. Appellants may not bypass a tribal forum in order to allege violations of the Indian Civil Rights Act before the IBIA. Kimberly Amundsen.

An agency of the tribal government does not have standing to challenge BIA approval or disapproval of tribal legislation unless it is granted that authority under tribal law. Shoshone-Bannock Tribal Tax Commission v. Acting Portland Area Director, 30 IBIA 185 (1997).

"Appellants correctly perceive that the Board's decisions in this area are grounded in the Federal policy of respect for tribal self-government. See, e.g., Feezor, 25 IBIA 298. In furtherance of this policy, the Board has recognized that individuals whose primary complaint is with a tribal enactment belong in a tribal forum rather than before this Board. E.g., Hunt, 27 IBIA 178. At the same time, the Board recognizes that a tribe whose enactment is the subject of a BIA decision has a right to appeal the BIA decision to the Board. E.g., Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community v. Acting Minneapolis Area Director, 27 IBIA 163 (1995). The Board uses the term "standing" to describe the distinction between appellants who are entitled to pursue an appeal of a particular BIA decision before the Board and those who are not so entitled. While the Board's "standing" analysis in its tribal government cases may differ from the analysis in cases such as Flast v. Cohen and Baker v. Carr (fn immediately below in text) it is well-grounded in the decisions of the Supreme Court which are most relevant to the issue here. See, e.g., Iowa Mutual Insurance Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9 (1987) and National Farmers Union Insurance Cos. v. Crow Tribe, 471 U.S. 845 (1985).

There is, of course, a substantial difference between the posture of the cases addressed in these Supreme Court decisions and the posture of the case presently before the Board. In Flast v. Cohen and Baker v. Carr, rights claimed under Federal law were sought to be enforced in Federal court. Here, appellants are seeking to enforce rights claimed under tribal law in a Federal forum. Debra Williamson-Edwards v. Acting Minneapolis Area Director, 29 IBIA 261 (1996)."

Links to Additional Topics in this Article

 

 

 

Was this page helpful?

Please provide a comment