John Doe v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
159 Idaho 741
| Idaho | 2016Background
- Tribes intervened in the child adoption proceeding under ICWA concerns and potential Indian child status.
- Trial court appointed independent counsel for the Child with costs shared by the Does and Tribes, and discovery disputes arose.
- Does sought 1993 enrollment application; Tribes refused disclosure citing sovereign privacy; sanctions were imposed for noncompliance.
- Court found the record insufficient to establish Child as an Indian child, but applied ICWA placement preferences for best interests.
- Trial court issued sanctions and fee orders against Tribes; Tribes appealed challenging discovery rulings, sanctions, enrollment injunction, and fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly ruled on Child’s Indian child status | Does argues ICWA governs if Child is Indian. | Tribes contend status must be determined for ICWA applicability and enrollment issues. | Harmless error; ICWA applicability not outcome-determinative |
| Whether the order to compel discovery was proper | Does needed disclosure to determine eligibility and enrollment | Tribes claim 1993 Application not relevant; privileged/sovereign controls apply | Abuse of discretion; order to compel was improper |
| Whether the sanctions against the Tribes were proper | Does sought sanctions for noncompliance with discovery | Tribes argue sanctions were appropriate under the circumstances | Monetary sanctions reversed; non-monetary sanctions deemed improper or harmless |
| Whether the trial court erred by enjoining Tribes from enrolling Child | Does argue enrollment should be allowed pending litigation | Tribes claim court cannot interfere with sovereign enrollment decisions | Abuse of discretion; enrollment prohibition reversed |
| Whether the Tribes may be required to pay half of Child’s attorney’s fees | Does sought fee-shifting against Tribes as prevailing party | Tribes contend sovereign immunity bars such fee awards | Sovereign immunity bars monetary awards; no fees awarded on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978) (tribe defines its own membership; core sovereignty)
- U.S. v. Horn, 29 F.3d 754 (1st Cir. 1994) (sovereign immunity and supervisory powers distinguished)
- Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (1996) (waiver of sovereign immunity must be express for monetary claims)
- McClendon v. United States, 885 F.2d 627 (9th Cir. 1989) (sovereign immunity waivers must be explicit)
- Excell Constr., Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Labor, 141 Idaho 688 (2005) (statutory/ equity authorities do not authorize attorney fees without statute)