Muscogee Creek Indian Freedmen Band, Inc. v. Bernhardt
385 F. Supp. 3d 16
D.C. Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiffs are descendants of Muscogee (Creek) Nation Freedmen who allege the 1866 Treaty entitles them to MCN citizenship and that they were excluded by the MCN 1979 constitution and DOI approval.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in federal court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief restoring Freedmen descendants to MCN citizenship and related rights; defendants include MCN Principal Chief James Floyd and federal officials.
- Complaint alleges systemic denial of Freedmen descendants' citizenship (citing two non-party examples: Fred Johnson and Ron Graham), but does not allege that any named plaintiff actually applied for or was denied tribal citizenship.
- Defendant Floyd moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust tribal remedies; federal defendants moved to dismiss on statute-of-limitations and other grounds.
- The Court held that tribal-exhaustion doctrine is dispositive: Plaintiffs must seek citizenship through the MCN administrative and judicial processes before pursuing federal relief; the Complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust.
- The Court rejected Plaintiffs' arguments that exhaustion was excused because tribal courts lack jurisdiction over federal defendants or because exhaustion would be futile based on anecdotal denials over a decade old.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs had to exhaust tribal remedies before suing in federal court | Plaintiffs contend exhaustion not required because tribal courts cannot adjudicate claims against federal defendants and exhaustion would be futile | Floyd (tribal defendant) argues Plaintiffs failed to allege they applied for tribal citizenship and thus failed to exhaust; federal presence does not excuse exhaustion | Court: Exhaustion required; dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust tribal remedies |
| Whether presence of federal defendants excused exhaustion | Plaintiffs rely on cases where federal claims were uniquely federal and tribal courts could not provide relief | Defendants: presence of federal defendants is ancillary; tribal process can address core membership claims against tribal actors | Court: Presence of federal defendants does not excuse exhaustion when tribal courts can afford requested relief |
| Whether futility exception applies to excuse exhaustion | Plaintiffs argue past denials of two non-party Freedmen show futility of applying now | Defendants: Plaintiffs offered insufficient, stale, anecdotal evidence to meet high futility threshold | Court: Futility not shown; petitioners must make a substantial showing of eligibility and show exhaustion would be clearly useless; Plaintiffs failed to do so |
| Proper remedy | Plaintiffs seek federal declaratory/injunctive relief now | Defendants ask dismissal; Floyd sought dismissal on exhaustion grounds | Court: Dismissed Complaint without prejudice to allow tribal administrative/judicial processes to be pursued first |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat'l Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845 (establishes tribal-exhaustion/comity principles)
- Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (explains limits and exceptions to tribal jurisdiction and exhaustion)
- Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9 (tribal courts should have first opportunity to decide matters implicating tribal governance)
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (tribal self-determination and authority to define membership)
- Vann v. Kempthorne, 534 F.3d 741 (distinguishable federal-only relief case relied on by plaintiffs)
- United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853 (tribal exhaustion excused where tribal courts plainly lack jurisdiction over federal actors)
- Middlemist v. Secretary of the United States Dept. of the Interior, 19 F.3d 1318 (tribal exhaustion required even when federal defendants named; tribal process can develop record relevant to federal claims)
- Hall v. Babbitt, 208 F.3d 218 (intra-tribal disputes require exhaustion despite presence of federal defendants)
- Smith v. Moffett, 947 F.2d 442 (tribal remedies should be exhausted where claims arise on reservation and involve tribal membership)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausible claims)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard guidance)