Justia Native American Law Opinion Summaries

A former police officer for a federally recognized Indian tribe was terminated from his position and subsequently brought a lawsuit in federal court against several of his superior officers and the tribe's general counsel. His claims, brought against these individuals in their personal capacities, included federal civil rights causes of action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985(2), and 1985(3), a Bivens claim, and a state tort claim for intentional interference with contractual relations. He did not sue the tribe itself. The complaint alleged that the defendants treated him less favorably than Native American employees, subjected him to a racially hostile work environment, interfered with his court testimony, and conspired to deprive him of due process in his employment and reputation.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed the action. The court held that the individual defendants were entitled to absolute personal immunity, and, alternatively, that the tribe was a required party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 that could not be joined due to tribal sovereign immunity. The court did not address arguments regarding tribal sovereign immunity or qualified immunity as independent grounds for dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. The court held that tribal sovereign immunity does not bar suits seeking money damages from tribal officials in their individual capacities where any judgment would not operate against the tribe itself. The court further held that the individual defendants were not entitled to absolute immunity, as the functions at issue—personnel and employment decisions—were not historically protected by such immunity at common law. Additionally, the tribe was not a required party under Rule 19 because it lacked a legally protected interest that could be impaired by the litigation’s outcome. The court remanded for the district court to address any qualified immunity defenses in the first instance. View "ERWINE V. WESTBROOK" on Justia Law

A member of the Choctaw Tribe was arrested by a police officer from the Duncan Police Department after the officer responded to a report of a suspicious individual at a store located within the boundaries of the Chickasaw Nation. The officer, who was cross-commissioned by both the city and the tribe, conducted field sobriety tests, arrested the individual, and read him Oklahoma’s Implied Consent Test Request. The arrestee was booked on state criminal charges, but it was later discovered during booking that he was a tribal member and the alleged offenses occurred in Indian country, rendering Oklahoma courts without jurisdiction. The officer then filed tribal charges, which were eventually dismissed.Following these events, the individual filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, raising federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and state-law claims for false arrest and unlawful detention. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, determining that the officer acted under tribal, not state, authority and thus the § 1983 claim failed. The court also dismissed the state-law claims for the same reason.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the district court’s ruling was based on a misunderstanding of the applicable law. The appellate court explained that a state officer may detain a suspect before conclusively determining tribal status, and that acting in excess of authority may still constitute action under color of state law for § 1983 purposes. The Tenth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, without deciding whether the officer ultimately satisfied the color-of-law requirement. The court also reversed the dismissal of the state-law claims, since that decision depended on the mistaken analysis of the federal claim. View "Walden v. The City of Duncan, Oklahoma" on Justia Law

Nine inmates at a Connecticut correctional facility challenged their confinement in a unit known as Q-Pod, which is used to transition inmates from more restrictive housing back to the general population. The plaintiffs alleged that Q-Pod imposed harsher conditions than the general population, including extended periods of isolation, unsanitary conditions due to toilet restrictions, lack of access to medical care and counseling, limited vocational and educational opportunities, and restricted religious services. Two plaintiffs specifically claimed they were denied access to Native American religious practices, such as sweat lodge ceremonies and smudging, which are congregate religious activities.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted summary judgment to the prison officials on the basis of qualified immunity for all federal claims, finding that the conditions in Q-Pod did not rise to the level of constitutional violations under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments, and that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment free exercise claims. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and denied injunctive relief as moot. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was denied, and they appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment as to the Eighth Amendment, procedural due process, and the free exercise claims of seven plaintiffs, holding that the conditions and restrictions in Q-Pod did not violate clearly established law. However, the Second Circuit reversed as to the free exercise claims of two plaintiffs who were denied participation in Native American congregate religious services, finding that the denial, without any penological justification, violated clearly established law. The court remanded with instructions to deny summary judgment on these claims and vacated the dismissal of the related state-law claims. View "Baltas v. Chapdelaine" on Justia Law

In 2021, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, Spirit Lake Tribe, and three individual Native American voters filed a lawsuit against North Dakota’s Secretary of State. They claimed that the state's 2021 redistricting plan diluted Native American voting strength, violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 2 of the VRA prohibits vote dilution, which can occur through packing a minority group into one district or dividing them among several districts to weaken their voting power.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota denied the Secretary's motion to dismiss, which argued that private plaintiffs lacked a cause of action under Section 2 and could not use § 1983 to enforce it. The district court allowed the case to proceed, and after a bench trial, it ruled that the 2021 redistricting map violated Section 2. The court permanently enjoined the Secretary from using the map and ordered the North Dakota Legislative Assembly to adopt a remedial map. When the Assembly failed to do so, the court imposed the plaintiffs' proposed map.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The main issue was whether private plaintiffs could enforce Section 2 of the VRA through § 1983. The court held that Section 2 does not unambiguously confer an individual right enforceable under § 1983. The court emphasized that Section 2 focuses on the entities regulated (states and political subdivisions) rather than unambiguously creating individual rights. Consequently, the court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it for lack of a cause of action. View "Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe" on Justia Law

Waukegan Potawatomi Casino, LLC (WPC) alleged that its Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when the City of Waukegan did not advance its casino proposal for licensing consideration. WPC claimed it experienced intentional discrimination during the application process as a "class of one." The City of Waukegan certified three other applicants but not WPC, which alleged that the process was rigged to benefit another applicant, Lakeside Casino, LLC. WPC pointed to the relationship between the City's mayor and a founding partner of Lakeside, as well as the City's handling of supplemental information from applicants, as evidence of discrimination.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment for the City. The court concluded that WPC, as an arm of a sovereign Native American tribe, could not maintain a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Additionally, the court found that WPC's class-of-one equal protection claim failed because WPC was not similarly situated to the other applicants and there were multiple conceivable rational bases for the City's conduct.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that WPC could not carry its heavy burden as a class-of-one plaintiff. The court noted that there were several rational bases for the City's decision, including differences in the casino proposals and the applicants' experience. The court also found that WPC failed to identify a similarly situated comparator who was treated more favorably. The court concluded that the City's conduct throughout the review process, including its handling of supplemental information, had rational justifications. Thus, WPC's class-of-one claim failed under both prongs of the analysis. View "Waukegan Potawatomi Casino, LLC v City of Waukegan" on Justia Law

Marci Walkingstick Dixon, a Native American woman and member of the Cherokee Nation, worked at Northeastern State University (NSU) in the Information Technology Services Department. After being supervised by Dr. Richard Reif, she reported experiencing discriminatory comments and actions based on her race and sex. Following her complaint to NSU's Title IX officer, she faced increased hostility from Dr. Reif. In 2018, after a dispute over compensatory time and subsequent reprimand, she formally complained about a hostile work environment. NSU then began characterizing her time report as falsified and eventually terminated her employment, citing poor job performance and improper timekeeping.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma granted summary judgment in favor of NSU and Dr. Reif on Dixon's claims of Title VII sex and race discrimination, Title VII retaliation, and FMLA retaliation. The court found that Dixon failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation and could not show that NSU's reasons for her termination were pretextual. The court also concluded that Dr. Reif was not Dixon's employer under the FMLA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's summary judgment on Dixon's Title VII sex and race discrimination claims and her Title VII retaliation claim, finding that she had established a prima facie case and presented sufficient evidence of pretext. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Dr. Reif on the FMLA retaliation claim, agreeing with the lower court's application of the economic reality test to determine that Dr. Reif was not Dixon's employer under the FMLA. View "Dixon v. Regional University System of the Oklahoma Board" on Justia Law

Two members of the Lipan-Apache Native American Church, Gary Perez and Matilde Torres, sued the City of San Antonio over its development plan for Brackenridge Park. They claimed that the plan, which involved tree removal and bird deterrence measures, would prevent them from performing religious ceremonies in the park, violating their rights under the First Amendment, the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Texas Constitution. They sought an injunction requiring the city to grant them access to the park for worship, minimize tree removal, and allow cormorants to nest.The district court granted them access to the park for religious ceremonies but declined to enjoin the city's planned tree removal and bird deterrence measures. Both parties appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the city's development plan did not substantially burden the appellants' religious exercise. The court also found that the city's plan served two compelling interests: public health and safety, and compliance with federal law. The court concluded that the city's tree removal and bird deterrence plans were the least restrictive means to advance these interests. Therefore, the appellants failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. The court also denied the appellants' emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal. View "Perez v. City of San Antonio" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Alaska ruled on the legal process applying to the Office of Children's Services (OCS) when it seeks to admit a child in its custody to a hospital for psychiatric care. The case centered on a minor named Mira J., a member of the Native Village of Kwinhagak (the Tribe), who was placed in OCS custody and hospitalized for 46 days for psychiatric treatment without a hearing to determine if the hospitalization was justified.The Tribe argued that her hospitalization should have been governed by the civil commitment statutes or, alternatively, that the constitution did not permit OCS to hospitalize a child for such a long time without a court hearing to determine whether the hospitalization was justified. The court rejected the Tribe's statutory argument but agreed that Mira's due process rights under the Alaska Constitution were violated.The court held that while OCS was not required to follow the civil commitment statutes when admitting Mira to either hospital, due process required OCS to promptly notify parties to the child in need of aid (CINA) case when admitting a child to the hospital for psychiatric care. Further, due process required the court to hold a hearing as soon as reasonably possible to determine whether the hospitalization was justified. The court held that the 46-day wait between Mira's first admission to the hospital and the hearing was too long to satisfy due process, and thus reversed the lower court's order authorizing Mira's continued hospitalization. View "Native Village of Kwinhagak v. State of Alaska" on Justia Law

Plaintiff is the former Chief Financial Officer of the Cypress Bayou Casino. The Casino is owned by the Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana. The Chitimacha Tribe is one of four federally recognized Indian tribes in Louisiana. According to the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint, the Chitimacha tribal council authorized Spivey (as CFO of the Casino) to make a $3,900 bonus payment to the then-newly elected chairman of the tribal council. Plaintiff claimed that several members of the tribal council turned around and reported the bonus payment to federal and state law enforcement. Plaintiff initially sued the Tribe, the Casino, and four tribal council members in federal court under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1985 and Louisiana tort law. The district court, over Plaintiff’s objections, again adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations, denied Plaintiff’s remand motion, and dismissed all Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.   The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded to state court. The court first wrote that when a district court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a removed case, it must remand. The court held, in accordance with the statute’s plain text and the great weight of authority from across the country, that Section 1447(c) means what it says, admits of no exceptions, and requires remand even when the district court thinks it futile. Moreover, the court held that such a dismissal should be made without prejudice. View "Spivey v. Chitimacha Tribe" on Justia Law

Petitioner applied to the trial court in March 2022 to change his name. On the ground that Petitioner has “outstanding warrant(s),” the trial court denied Harris’s petition.   The Second Appellate District affirmed because there was no abuse of discretion. The court explained that by statute, it was proper for the trial court to check law enforcement records when considering Petitioner’s petition to change his name. The California Legislature has directed courts to use the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) and Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) to determine whether a name change applicant must register as a sex offender. View "In re Harris" on Justia Law