Cahto Tribe of the Laytonville Rancheria v. Dutschke
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9743
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Cahto Tribe seeks APA review of BIA’s 2009 decision directing disenrolled members be placed back on the tribal roll.
- Disenrollments occurred via a 1995 Cahto General Council vote based on alleged Hoopa-Yurok settlement affiliation and other tribal criteria.
- The Tribe amended its Articles in 2006; the amendment removed BIA approval of enrollment ordinances.
- Initial BIA actions in 1999-2000 (Superintendent and Regional Director) did not resolve the disenrollment dispute; IBIA vacated those decisions for lack of BIA authority.
- IBIA 2002 suggested potential authority under 25 C.F.R. Part 62, but concluded it did not review Sloan’s challenge on the merits.
- The 2009 BIA decision relied on the Tribe’s governing documents (Ordinance No. 1) to review Sloan’s appeal, which the district court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Tribe’s governing documents authorize BIA review of disenrollment. | Cahto asserts the Ordinance authorizes appeals to the BIA for disenrollment. | Interior contends the Ordinance only permits appeals for enrollment applications. | Governing documents do not authorize BIA review of disenrollment. |
| Whether the IBIA’s 2002 decision precludes the 2009 BIA decision. | Sloan argues IBIA preclusion applies to the 2009 decision. | Interior argues no preclusion given later proceedings and different scope. | Not addressed; reversed on the narrower ground, avoiding preclusion analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (Supreme Court 1978) (tribal membership defined by tribe central to its sovereignty)
- Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (Supreme Court 1979) (statutory interpretation construes words by ordinary meaning)
- Lewis v. Norton, 424 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2005) (tribal membership matters implicate fundamental justice)
- Gila River Indian Cmty. v. United States, 697 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 2012) (APA review and jurisdiction over agency actions)
- Sauer v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 668 F.3d 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (de novo review of agency jurisdiction)
- Yetiv v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 503 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2007) (jurisdictional scope of agency action reviewed de novo)