United States Ex Rel. Turner v. Fisher

Background

A group of people identified as Creek Freedmen by blood were placed on official rolls after a hearing and approval by the Secretary of the Interior. Later, a motion alleged their enrollments were secured by perjury and their names were struck from the rolls after a short notice given to their attorney only a few hours before the hearing. The relators sought a court order (mandamus) requiring the Secretary to put their names back on the rolls.

Reasoning

The Court explained two main points. First, rights gained from being lawfully enrolled cannot be taken away without adequate notice and a real chance to be heard, so the very brief notice to the freedmen’s lawyer was not sufficient. Second, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, not an automatic right; it will not be used to help parties who do not come into court with clean hands. The Secretary’s formal answer said, on information and belief, that the relators were not Creek Freedmen and that their enrollment was procured by fraud. That allegation, if proved, would defeat any right to restoration. The relators chose to stand on a general demurrer instead of replying to that defense, so the Court found the writ properly refused.

Real world impact

The decision affirms that officials cannot remove enrolled tribal members without meaningful notice, but it also shows that a government fraud defense and a petitioner’s procedural choices can prevent a court from ordering restoration. Mandamus will not be granted when the record shows a viable fraud defense or when petitioners fail to address that defense in court. The lower court’s refusal to issue the writ was affirmed.