Tiffany Aguayo v. S.M.R. Jewell
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12587
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Pala Band (non-IRA tribe) adopted Articles of Association (1960) and a 1961 Enrollment Ordinance that vested final enrollment authority in the BIA when appealed.
- Tribe adopted a Constitution in practice in 1997 (Resolution 97-36); BIA issued a retroactive Certificate of Approval in 2000. The 1997 Constitution transferred ultimate enrollment authority to the tribal Executive Committee and made the BIA advisory.
- In 2011 the Executive Committee used the 2009 Enrollment Ordinance (adopted under the 1997 Constitution) to disenroll ~150 descendants of Margarita Britten by reevaluating prior enrollments.
- Regional Director recommended reversing the disenrollments (advisory), but the Executive Committee refused; AS-IA affirmed that tribal law vested final authority in the Band and declined to compel re-enrollment.
- Plaintiffs sued under the APA alleging the AS-IA’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, arguing (1) the 1997 Constitution was invalid, (2) the BIA had trust duties to protect members, and (3) prior BIA findings (1989) about Margarita’s blood quantum preclude the disenrollments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review AS-IA’s decision under the APA | Court lacks jurisdiction over tribal membership disputes; plaintiffs are just challenging tribal decisions | APA review is proper because plaintiffs exhausted BIA remedies and challenge final agency action | Jurisdiction exists to review AS-IA under APA; not barred by tribal sovereign immunity |
| Whether AS-IA action is committed to agency discretion (non-reviewable) | AS-IA’s deference to tribal self-governance is unreviewable policy choice | Agency applied tribal law and thus its action is reviewable under APA | Not committed to unreviewable discretion; court may review whether agency reasonably applied tribal law |
| Validity of 1997 Constitution and agency’s reliance on it | 1997 Constitution was not validly adopted (no formal election); BIA approval was unlawful or time-barred challenge | Pala is non-IRA tribe; IRA procedures do not apply; challenge to 2000 approval is time-barred; in any event BIA reasonably concluded Constitution valid | AS-IA’s conclusion that the 1997 Constitution was valid (or that challenge was time-barred) was reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious |
| Trust duty / preclusive effect of prior BIA rulings | Federal trust duty required BIA to protect members; 1989 AS-IA finding that Margarita was full-blood should preclude disenrollment | Trust duties are not unbounded; 1989 decision was under a prior regime that vested BIA with authority and does not bind tribal decisionmakers now | Trust duty does not require reversal here; collateral estoppel does not compel BIA action because tribal governing law now vests final authority with the Band |
Key Cases Cited
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (recognizing tribe’s sovereign authority to determine membership)
- Lewis v. Norton, 424 F.3d 959 (9th Cir.) (plaintiffs cannot circumvent tribal immunity by suing BIA without exhausting agency remedies)
- Cahto Tribe of Laytonville Rancheria v. Dutschke, 715 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir.) (APA review proper where BIA applied tribal law in membership dispute)
- Alto v. Black, 738 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir.) (agency decisions applying tribal enrollment law are reviewable and not committed to unreviewable discretion)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (agency nonaction sometimes unreviewable; narrow exception)
- Bowen v. Mich. Acad. of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667 (presumption of judicial review for agency action)
- United States v. Anderson, 625 F.2d 910 (9th Cir.) (IRA does not apply to tribes that voted against it)
- Cal. Valley Miwok Tribe v. United States, 515 F.3d 1262 (D.C. Cir.) (Secretary’s IRA approval discretion to protect tribal political integrity)
- Moapa Band of Paiute Indians v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 747 F.2d 563 (9th Cir.) (narrowness of the committed-to-discretion exception)
- Wind River Min. Corp. v. United States, 946 F.2d 710 (9th Cir.) (six-year statute of limitations on APA challenges)
- San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 581 (9th Cir.) (highly deferential arbitrary-and-capricious standard)