Inyo County, California v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony

2003-05-19

Headline: Tribal sovereignty limited for civil-rights lawsuits: Court rules a tribe cannot use the federal civil-rights law (Section 1983) to block state search-warrant seizures, and sends the case back.

Holding: The Court held that the Tribe may not sue under Section 1983 to assert sovereign immunity against a state search warrant and remanded to determine whether other federal law provides jurisdiction.

Real World Impact:

Prevents tribes from using Section 1983 to block state search-warrant seizures.
Remands case to see if federal common law allows tribal suits for injunctions.
Makes tribal privacy policies less able to stop criminal investigations.

Topics: tribal sovereignty, civil rights lawsuits, search warrants, tribal immunity, welfare fraud investigations

Summary

Background

A federally recognized tribe runs a tribal casino and refused to turn over employee payroll records when county officials investigated alleged welfare fraud. County prosecutors obtained a state search warrant, executed it on tribal property, and seized personnel records. The Tribe and its wholly owned gaming corporation sued in federal court seeking to stop further searches and to recover damages under the federal civil-rights statute (Section 1983) and under the so-called federal common law of Indian affairs.

Reasoning

The main question the Court addressed was whether a tribe can bring a lawsuit under Section 1983 to claim immunity from state search-and-seizure processes. The Court assumed tribes are not subject to suit under Section 1983 and held that Section 1983 was designed to protect private persons, not to advance a sovereign’s prerogative to withhold evidence. Because there was no allegation that the warrant lacked probable cause, the Court concluded the Tribe could not use Section 1983 to assert the sovereign right it claimed.

Real world impact

The Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision and remanded the case for the lower courts to decide whether some other federal law—for example, a particular rule of federal common law—provides a basis for the Tribe’s suit. The ruling limits tribes’ ability to use Section 1983 to block state criminal-investigation tactics, but the remand leaves open the possibility the Tribe may secure relief under a different federal legal theory.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens agreed the judgment should be set aside but wrote that tribes are "persons" who may bring Section 1983 suits; he concluded, however, this particular complaint failed to state a Section 1983 claim.