Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. Henriquez
2:13-cv-01917
D. Ariz.Dec 31, 2013Background
- Tribe is federally recognized; CIHA operates HUD-funded housing programs as a tribal non-profit.
- CIHA administers NAHASDA block grants via LOCCS; HUD funds CIHA directly as the grant recipient.
- January 2013 leadership dispute created multiple factions claiming tribal government control; BIA recognized Ayala-led council (May 2013) but appeal ongoing before IBIA.
- HUD temporarily prohibited LOCCS access for all current users pending tribal government clarity; revoked approval of CIHA’s HUD-27054 forms but did not suspend funds.
- CIHA and the Tribe sued HUD and SWONAP asserting (1) NAHASDA funding suspension, (2) APA due process/notice issues, (3) federal common law recognition of tribal authority, (4) declaratory relief on tribal court recognition, (5) fiduciary duty breach.
- Court confronts whether plaintiffs have standing and whether the court may adjudicate intra-tribal governance disputes, ultimately dismissing for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs have standing to sue given intra-tribal governance | Ayala/Lewis/ Reid factions claim standing as CIHA/Tribe reps | HUD/Defendants lack a justiciable intra-tribal dispute to resolve | No standing; intra-tribal governance dispute unresolved; lacks subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether the court may adjudicate intra-tribal governance without final BIA determination | Interim recognition should be maintained pending dispute resolution | Courts cannot resolve tribal governance disputes or recognize interim governments | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; cannot resolve intra-tribal governance in federal court |
Key Cases Cited
- Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 439 F.3d 832 (8th Cir. 2006) (intervention in tribal affairs would be impermissible; no jurisdiction to determine tribal control)
- Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa, Meskwaki Casino Litig., 340 F.3d 749 (8th Cir. 2003) (district court may lack jurisdiction when resolving election/tribal governance would require tribal-law determinations)
- Timbisha Shoshone Tribe v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 2011 WL 1883862 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (court declines to adjudicate tribal governance without final BIA determination)
- Timbisha Shoshone Tribe v. Kennedy, 687 F. Supp. 2d 1171 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (standing depends on adjudication of disenrollment within tribal governance)
- Nance v. E.P.A., 645 F.2d 701 (9th Cir. 1981) (fiduciary duties to tribes; not extending to requiring agencies to recognize interim tribal governments)
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978) (tribal sovereignty and internal governance reserved to tribes)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete injuries traceable to challenged conduct)
- Oregon v. Legal Services Corp., 552 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2009) (standing and redressability considerations in public-law challenges)