Background
Andrea Dawn George appealed the dismissal of her action against the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and individual tribal officials. George alleged that her removal from the Colville Business Council and related actions violated the U.S. Constitution, the Indian Civil Rights Act, and tribal law. The district court dismissed the claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court’s reasoning
The Ninth Circuit held that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court explained that alleged violations of tribal law do not establish federal-question jurisdiction. The court further found that the Indian Civil Rights Act provides no private right of action for injunctive relief, and George did not pursue a habeas remedy. Regarding constitutional claims, the court noted that the Constitution does not restrain Indian tribes, and Section nineteen hundred and eighty-three claims require action under color of state law, which George did not allege. The court also rejected a federal common law cause of action because George was a tribal member who voluntarily invoked tribal court jurisdiction. Finally, the court ruled that the district court should have dismissed the complaint without prejudice rather than with prejudice.
What it means going forward
Tribal members cannot sue their tribes in federal court for constitutional or Indian Civil Rights Act violations unless they can show the tribe acted under color of state law. Dismissals for lack of jurisdiction must be without prejudice, allowing plaintiffs to potentially refile in appropriate forums.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download