Albert Alto v. Kenneth Salazar
738 F.3d 1111
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- The San Pasqual Band’s Constitution vests ultimate enrollment authority in the Secretary of the Interior/BIA under Article III, §2 and incorporates the 1960 Regulations defining enrollment criteria.
- In 1987 Marcus Alto, Sr. and descendants sought Band membership; 1991 BIA/Assistant Secretary affirmed enrollment eligibility.
- In 2007 a Band member challenged the disenrollment of Alto descendants; the Band sought BIA approval to disenroll based on new evidence.
- In 2011 the Assistant Secretary issued a 22-page Disenrollment Order disenrolling Alto descendants for inaccurate blood lineage.
- The Altos filed suit seeking APA review of the Disenrollment Order and, later, relief to preserve their tribal rights and per capita payments during litigation.
- The district court issued a preliminary injunction blocking further enforcement of the Disenrollment Order and ordered interim benefits; the Band intervened for limited purposes and challenged the injunction and certain rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction to issue the injunction. | Altos argue agency action is reviewable under APA. | Band contends lack of federal question and need for Band as a required party. | Yes; court had jurisdiction; APA review proper despite tribal law. |
| Whether the Band is a required party to claims 1–3 and whether injunctive relief improper without Band. | Altos contend complete relief possible without Band. | Band argues Rule 19 requires joinder; sovereign immunity blocks absent-party relief. | Band not required party for claims 1–3; complete relief possible without Band. |
| Whether the court should dissolve or modify the injunction while review proceeds. | Altos seek continued relief preserving membership rights. | Band argues injunction scope exceeded court’s authority and needs clarification. | Remand to clarify injunction; limited suspension of Disenrollment Order affirmed. |
| Whether the Altos’ fourth and fifth claims are within the court’s jurisdiction and subject to dismissal. | Fourth and fifth claims concern fiduciary duties and equal treatment. | Band contends those claims are not properly before court at this stage. | Pendent jurisdiction over fourth/fifth claims not reached; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cahto Tribe v. Dutschke, 715 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirms APA review of BIA action despite tribal law context)
- Lewis v. Norton, 424 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2005) (tribal enrollment decisions generally hands-off but review possible under APA)
- Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 276 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2002) (complete relief and Rule 19 considerations in tribal contexts)
- Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Indian Reservation v. Lujan, 928 F.2d 1498 (9th Cir. 1991) (Rule 19/joinder considerations in tribal matters)
- Runs After v. United States, 766 F.2d 347 (8th Cir. 1985) (tribal governance issues and BIA action; APA review framing)