Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor v. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission

рleaded guilty sufficiently he was petition Denied; recent and for review is preclude serious to a favorable exercise of order of the BIA is Affirmed. 212(h). § In reaching

discretion under its

decision, the BIA was not bound the IJ’s

view either of Palmer’s conviction or the situation,

equities particular his could

review the record de novo. Cordoba-Chaves (7th INS, Cir.1991); REICH, Secretary Labor, 946 F.2d Robert Patel, 811 F.2d at n. That Plaintiff-Appellant, 8. this court might assign weight a different to the factors moment, considered the BIA is of no GREAT LAKES INDIAN AND FISH Garciar-Lopez, may 923 F.2d at for we COMMISSION, WILDLIFE engage plenary in a review of the record. Defendant-Appellee. Cordoba-Chaves, Cir.1991). role, rather, policing Our “lies No. 92-4035. statutory delegation boundaries of the Appeals, United States Court of assuring and in that discretion within the Seventh Circuit. scope delegation of that exercised way.” Rodriguez-Barajas, reasoned Argued June 1993. deny at 96. The BIA’s decision to Aug. Decided 1993. inadmissibility Palmer a waiver of in the exercise of discretion did not exceed its dele Rehearing Suggestion Rehearing gated powers and was not irrational. En Banc Denied Dec.

IY. argues

Palmer the BIA abused its reviewing statutory

discretion his eli

gibility § for relief registry under precluded

statute. For the reasons that dis

cretionary however, § relief under

BIA concluded that Palmer did not merit §

relief under 249 in the exercise of discre Attorney

tion. “[I]f the General decides re

lief should be denied aas matter of discre

tion, statutory eligibility requirements Hernandez-Patino,

need not be addressed.” Patel,

831 F.2d at 752. See also 811 F.2d at — 380; Goldeshtein, Matter I. N.& Dec. at -, Int. 3158. The denial of discretion 212(h)

ary § relief under proper. It essentially

follows that denial of identical re § proper.

lief under 249 was also

Deportation undoubtedly will work hard- ease,

ship in this both to William Palmer and However, family.

to his findings the BIA’s

that Palmer had failed to demonstrate both

statutory eligibility equities meriting

favorable exercise of discretion under 212(h) do not constitute an abuse of discre- applications

tion. Palmer’s for relief under

§§ 245 appropriately and 249 were denied. Mandel, Feldman, Dept, Allen H.

Steven J. Labor, Litigation, Washington, Appellate (ar- DC, Stone, William J. Ellen L. Beard Sol., Labor, gued), Dept, of Office of the DC, Washington, plaintiff-appellant. Zorn, E. Lakes Indian Fish James Great Com’n, Odanah, WI, Douglas & B.L. Wildlife Note, Sonosky, (argued), Endreson Anne D. Endreson, Chambers, Washington, Sachse & DC, defendant-appellee. COFFEY,

Before Circuit POSNER ESCHBACH, Judges, and Senior Circuit Judge.

POSNER, Judge. Circuit Department of Labor asked subpoena di court to enforce a the district Indian Fish against the Great Lakes rected Commission, seeking evidence and Wildlife violating Fair the Commission et Act, §§ 29 U.S.C. Labor Standards seq., which requires so far as relevant here employees and a half employers one regular wages for work in excess times their judge forty a week. The district hours subpoena, on the to enforce the refused subject to is not ground that the Commission appealed. Its Department the Act. The not detain us argument, which need first lоng, the court should enforced is that question resolving the subpoena without deferring the statutory coverage, instead Department and unless the question until for viola against the Commission proceeded doubtful whether Act. If it were tions of the a failing pay time and the Commission overtime, question if the whether half for subject to the Act could the information resolved without not be sug subpoena, the deferral sought by the proper. Department would be gested The Commis condition is satisfied. Neither pay time and it does not admits that sion overtime; statu question half for independent of informa tory coverage is super- subpoena might produce, as it is Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission tion that hunting, law. question purely of activities. It fixes fish- vises these having to com not be burdened with ing, should various gathering seasons for the if, district as the court ply with species plant animal and covered believed, juris has no agency issuing the it usufructuary rights, on the sets limits the regulate wages the that Com diction type permitted, amounts and of catch and juris pаys. Questions regulatory mission compliance polices regulations. with its properly subpoe are addressed at diction is the It last function most labor intensive. here, if, stage as are na-enforcement only assuring consists not stage. at that ripe for determination EEOC hunters, fishers, gatherers and exceed do not (10th Nation, F.2d Cir. 871 937 Cherokee catch, the authorized use meth- unauthorized 1989); Ship Newport United States v. News fish, hunt, ods, season, gather out of Co., building Dry& F.2d 165- Dock 837 protecting inter- but also of Indians from (4th Cir.1988); City EEOC v. Ocean Po 66 hunters, fishers, gath- by ference white and (4th Cir.1987); Dept., lice 820 F.2d 1378 FTC Many people white in Great erers. (7th Cir.1980); Shaffner, 626 F.2d region Lakes elsewhere in the United Airlines, Inc., United States Frontier States either do not understand ‍‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‍or do not (10th Cir.1977); cf. F.2d Okla privileges accept the that the Indian treaties Publishing Walling, homa Press Co. v. 327 grant Indians. Forbidden themselves to 90 L.Ed. 614 fish, spear example, for white re- fishermen (1946). Compliance subpoena a with a permitted sent the fact Indians are do burden, person and one that a or institution so. This resentment sometimes over boils subject regula that can show it is not to the Hence employees into violence. the field regime in tory aid of which the only are not but Commission uniformed should not be to bear. Cf. issued They also armed. are fact a combination id. at 66 S.Ct. at 509. policemen. game wardens and The State Great and Lakes Indian Fish Wildlife deputized of Wisconsin them to exercise Chip is a consortium of thirteen state as well as tribal law func- enforcement pewa Indian tribes that inhabit the Great they patrol. tions in areas that region. The Commission was created Lakes The work Commission is seasonal usufructuary order to enforce the usufructuary rights it because the ad- Chippewas that the retained under a during seasonal. sea- ministers are And nineteenth-century with the series treaties fishing hunting principal for sons and Sokaogon Chippewa United States. Com species, work of the field Commission’s (7th munity Corp., v. Exxon F.2d employees game police warden Cir.1993); Voigt, Lac Courte Band v. Oreilles —its —takes clock, virtually only place round the be- not (7th Cir.1983). daylight long hours cause the Chippewa surrendered these treaties most hunting fishing place throughout take occupation of of their land out them, also because the like to reservations, side of Indian but retained the night, by spear torchlight. fish at The sev- right great use deal of that land for en-day-a-week, char- twenty-four-hour-a-day (which traditional Indian activities incidental police acter of the work of these Indian ly religious signif as well as economic that of law similar to enforcement officers Indians), fishing for icance such as generally, by accentuated the seasonali- walleye pike muskellunge, hunting deer ty responsibilities. If moose, gathering wild rice and the trees, employed governments state or local maple sap provided they could legal would have no enti- things these federal prejudice do these without to lawful overtime; tlement to time and a half for occupiers Today of the land. retained these rights, though greatly emplоyer would be free within broad limits curtailed spread occupation, compensatory off of white extend over to substitute time still premium square pay tens thousands of to mea- miles states overtime but also abutting rather Great Lakes. The Great Lakes sure hours worked a work month week, employee right employ who law officers so that an enforcement than a work terms, particular in a than 40 hours the Fair worked more Labor Standards Act compen- be even to presumed week would not entitled be not to would unless he had exceeded satory time off by forcing the Great Lakes Indian Fish and entire 29 U.S.C. in the month. hours Wildlife Commission to time and half 207(o). 207(k), §§ the Fail’ Labor Because for overtime. Cf. v. Fond du EEOC Lac Indians, Act does mention Standards Heavy Equipment & Construction position that Department of Labor takes the (8th Cir.1993); Navajo F.2d 246 Donovan v. the war- exemptions inapplicable these Industries, Forest Products 692 F.2d 709 den-policemen of the Great Lakes Cir.1982). But one searches trea- Depart- Fish Commission. The and Wildlife right. ties in vain for such a far So acknowledged argu- counsel at ment’s able granted pertains only rights to this case the be- the difference in treatment ment that hunt, fish, gather. are There is law enforcement officers tween these system enforcing no mention of the for these sense, policemen local makes no state or rights, alone let reference to the terms of be that can but contended difference employment of those it. hired to enforce Congress. re- only by added erased She But cannot end assuringly only question that it was a we our consideration fi- money. appeal that The Commission’s activities observation. The ultimate grant a the De- primarily fairly nanced from question meaning is the to be attrib Interior, if partment of the the Commis- Fair uted to the Labor Act. Obvi Standards warden-policemen sion is its ously broadly enough the Act is worded to always Department overtime it can ask the apply warden-policemen to the Commission’s funding Department for additionаl and the Indeed, without semantic strain. read liter Congress supplemental can in turn ask for a exemption ally against background of the appropriation. officers, for state and local enforcement law it covers the Commission’s law enforcement treaties the le Indian are deemed is not officers because a gal equivalent of federal statutes agency. readings or local And literal state abrogated can modified therefore be or even readings that refuse to take into Dion, statutes — 476 Congress. United v. States any ambiguities account that are visible 2216, 2219, U.S. 106 90 S.Ct. of the rather on the face statute —are (1986). Nevertheless, partly no L.Ed.2d 767 days, see, Supreme vogue in the these Court guilt a mistreat doubt out of sense for the Germain, v. e.g., Connecticut National Bank by the government, ment of Indians U.S. - U.S. -, -, 1146, 1149, 117 recognition like partly in that Indian tribes (1992); Virginia 391 Universi L.Ed.2d West vestiges sovereignty, at states retain least Casey, ty Hospitals, Inc. ap partly perhaps straightforward as a 1138, 1146-47, L.Ed.2d 111 113 68 S.Ct. plication “canon of that of the construction” (1991); Jr., Eskridge, N. “The New William disfavored, repeals by implication Textualista,” (1990), 621 37 UCLA L.Rev. presumption is that statute does not objec might compelling despite what seem treaty rights. Id. at 738- Associ tions. Herrmann Cencom Cable 2219-20; Washington v. S.Ct. (7th Cir.1992). ates, Inc., F.2d Passenger Washington Commercial State Department of Labor’s invocation Ass’n, Fishing Vessel canon, however, meaning” parried “plain (1979). 3055, 3076, 61 L.Ed.2d 823 of the canon by the invocation Commission’s Fair not mention Labor Standards Act does (other) only federal treaties but a time Indians. It was enacted in so far as well are to construed statutes be problems the fore when Indian were not at Mon to do favor of Indians. Nothing is reasonable policy agenda. front of the national Indians, 471 Tribe history tana v. legislative suggests that Con Blackfeet 2399, 2403-04, 766-68, gress thought possible impact about customs, Na rights, practic EEOC Cherokee Act on Indian tion, And treaty at 939. even Chippewa supra, F.2d es. If therefore had interpret question literally only money mood. It literalists do not рroduce doing well, a result policemen yet when so would sense state and local we can E.g., less the real world. Green v. Bock imagine go up that would howls from the Co., 504, 527-30, Laundry Machine state community and local law enforcement 1994-95, L.Ed.2d 557 Congress repeal exemption its tried to literalists, (concurring opinion). Even provisions the overtime of the Act. acknowledge say, applicability that is to exempting police The case for the tribal principle statutes of the contract inter stronger men is exempting than pretation that the court to seek allows mean ordinary police. mentioned intensely We ing beneath the level not when semantic seasonal An character of work. addi ambiguity there is an “intrinsic” in the con though tional that even consideration is there tract but also there is an when “extrinsic” treaty employ is no right to law enforcement one, is, when doubt literal officers on terms organi whatever the tribal meaning is the correct one arises zation sets оfficers are willing and the something one knows about the concrete ac accept, it has been traditional to leave the tivities that contract intended to administration of affairs for the most regulate. W.R. FDIC v. Grace & part (7th Cir.1989). They the Indians themselves. In Citicorp courts, their Credit, Brock, govern own their own 27, Industrial Inc. v. ments, 2694, police. It (1987), 107 own is true that S.Ct. 97 L.Ed.2d 23 these case mainly for regulation in institutions are the Supreme which the Court refused to rec reservations, ognize implicit exemption the the exercise an to the Fair but of usufruc- La Act, tuary rights bor stop impor Standards Court did not off the reservation is as “plain Act, with tant language” to the Indians as the exercise of their legislative occupancy rights went on to examine intent. within reservations and 36, maybe so, Id. at at 2700. more since about a third of all Indians live on An reservations. effective Department of lawyer Labor’s ac- system property rights, we long have been knowledges have what we described as the laissez-faire, skeptics reminded about de statutory analogue ambiguity. of extrinsic A pends upon regulations establishing and en literal reading of Fair Labor Standards forcing Hale, rights. those Robert L. “Coer Act would create a senseless distinction be- cion in a Supposedly and Distribution Non- police tween Indian and all other po- State,” Pol.Sci.Q. (1923); Coercive 38 470 Nothing lice. in Act alerts the reader to Sunstein, Rights Cass R. Revolu problem; you have to know that there After tion: Reconceiving Regulatory State 20 recognize are Indian it. But once it (1990). warden-policemen of the Great Act, recognized, purposive, viewed as a Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission document, rational ambiguous, becomes cre- important are an element of the scheme for ating interpretation. room for We cannot regulating property rights. think of oversight why reason other than spoken courts have “inherent sover Congress failed to extend the law enforce- eignty” of Indian and have tribes held that it exemption police, ment especially to Indian regulatory extends to- the kind functions engaged sort in the of seasonal activi- respect exercised with ties in warden-police which the defendant’s both Indians and non-Indians. South engage; Dako important, more no reason has been — Bourland, -, -, ta v. U.S. suggested Department’s lawyer to us. The 2309, 2319, (1993); speculated S.Ct. 124 L.Ed.2d 606 simply that the Indians must States, 544, lobby failed Montana v. United exemption; for an 565- and we 1258, legislation know that in S.Ct. 67 L.Ed.2d other areas of (1981); Wheeler, squeaky life it is the wheel United gets States oiled. said, As she question also it is 55 L.Ed.2d (1978). money, maybe comity get treating the Commission can The idea of sov —of more money Congress, ereigns, although including quasi-sovereigns Con- such gress tribes, is not in very giving greater at the moment states respect and Indian 1981); Brown, Gilroy berg Curtis to exercise ed. Charles litigants us than other —counsels Kohen, “The Effect of the Mini- construing legislation as hav- & Andrew forbearance Wage Employment Unemploy- regulatory functions mum ing invaded the central (1982). ment,” It is not entity. 20 J.Econ.Lit. 487 sovereign aof debate, try to resolvе such a our business to have no con the Indians Of course anyway the would not decide resolution intrusion; af immunity from such stitutional comity duty case. The relevant is a this Metropolitan Antonio v. San ter Garcia not to individual Indians but to forbearance 528, 105 Authority, 469 U.S. S.Ct. Transit a con- governments, and it would be (1985), the states even 83 L.Ed.2d spicuous comity the lat- breach accuse it has no constitu not. But even when do ter, lawyer Department’s came as the Labor backing, comity proper is a consider tional doing argument, oral of not close to statutory interpretation. So the Su ation being guided a sincere concern for the insisting held in preme Court of the former. We must bear best interests bal to alter the traditional Congress wants principal beneficiaries mind also that gov and the federal ance the states between Great Lakes Indian of the activities of the intention unmistakable. it make its ernment are not the Fish and Wildlife Commission 349-50, Bass, States v. U.S. United employees; are the Indi- Commission’s (1971); S.Ct. hunters, fishermen, gatherers whоm an Police, 491 Michigan Dept. State v.Will protects. serves and 2304, 2308, 105 58, 65, 109 U.S. — Ashcroft, Gregory v. general federal realize that other We -, -, 115 L.Ed.2d notably regulating employment, (1991). v. State Our dictum Smart OSHA, applied have been ERISA and 929, 936 Cir. Farm Ins. case, when, present in agencies Indian 1989), uniquely concerns that “federalism v. State treaty right no was at stake. Smart States; Tribe counter simply is no there 933-36; supra, 868 F.2d at Farm Ins. states, tribes, like goes far. part,” too Farm, 751 d’Alene Tribal Donovan Coeur comity. entitled to quasi-sovereigns are (9th Cir.1985); Dept. Labor F.2d 1113 of allowing the Indians to Comity argues for (9th Cir.1991); OSHRC, 935 F.2d 182 like, they police as even manage their own v. Warm Industry Pension Fund Lumber treaty prerogatives, such though no confers Industries, 939 Springs Products Forest gives stronger Congress unless until and (9th Cir.1991). employees But the F.2d 683 it here that it wants indication than activi engaged in routine in those cases were sovereign functions of tribal intrude on the character, or service ties of a commercial government. care, lumbering health rather namely They character. ap- governmеntal than of a lawyer argued that Department’s The officers, if who enforcement the were not law provisions of plication of the overtime by employed a state or local been benefit the had Act would Fair Labor Standards exempt from officers, have been government would who law enforcement Commission’s distinguishable Indians, Similarly if law. even it of course themselves are Confed (9th Kurtz, F.2d 878 Well, then erated Tribes employer. might, it hurt their Cir.1982), recognize implied an refusing to lively there is a de- again might it not —for for a excise taxation exemption from federal employ- regulations of the bate over whether employ do not hold tribal sawmill. We wage minimum relation such as ment exempt from the agencies are actually the os- ees of regulations benefit overtime hold Act. We beneficiaries, making Fair Labor Standards by labor since tensible employ agencies’ law-enforcement those regulations may cause expensive such more exercising gov ees, employеes any See, other e.g., Mechmet v. Four disemployment. by Ltd., functions that when exercised Hotel, ernmental Seasons given governments Welch, employees of other Cir.1987); Wages: Minimum Finis Act, exempt. special consideration Economics The Issues and Evidence Nation (Simon support of the Cherokee have the Wages Rotten- We Legal Minimum 207(k) case, Noting § (exempting employees that Title of 29 cited earlier. VII explicitly Rights agencies engaged the Civil Act ex- in law ‍‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‍enforcement n activities). empts Age but that principally Indian tribes Dis- relies on not, Employment Act does an argu- crimination ill-advised concession made at oral it Department Tenth Circuit held would read the ment counsel of La- exemption into Indian tribal the latter stat- bor that “the difference treatment be- rectifying oversight. ute. an tween The court was these tribal law enforcement officers today, actuated policemen We do the same the same state or local makes no sense.” however, purpose making lightly misplaced, federal law bear At 493. This reliance is prerogatives leeways very language on Indian as the for the “law enforce- statutory interpretation allow. ment exception” requires FLSA employees law “public enforcers be of a Affirmed. agency”: COFFEY, Judge, “(k) dissenting. Circuit Employment by public agencies en- gaged in protection fire or law enforce- (the Secretary “Secretary”) Labor ment activities requested that the district court enforce duces tecum the Great Lakes public agency No shall be deemed to (the Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (a) violated this section with “Indians”).1 “Commission” or the The Sec- respect employment any em- retary sought payroll records from the Com- ployee protection fire activities or might it mission order that determine employee in law enforcement activi- violating the Fair Labor ties....” (“FLSA”) through Standards Act its failure (West 207(k) (em- Supp.1993) U.S.C.A. time and one-half conservation war- added).2 phasis Congress clearly defined working dеns hours. overtime See 29 U.S.C. “public agency” government mean “the §§ seq. district et court refused to States; government United of a state Accepting enforce subpoena. argu- thereof; political any agency subdivision Commission, ment of the the court ruled as a (including of the United States the U.S. Post- matter of law that Commission was not Commission), al Service and Rate Postal subject to because applying the FLSA it to state, state; political or subdivision of a or the Commission would or affect off- any governmental agency.” interstate fish, reservation hunt gather and 203(x). § majority U.S.C. The has not di- guaranteed by between treaties the United statutory provision, rected any us to much States and tribes. the Indian holding less that an case law Indian tribe general, case, the Commission this

I. AGENCY PUBLIC LAW parameters fits within statutory of the ENFORCEMENT agency public definition of a in 29 U.S.C. EXCEPTION 203(x) 207(k). § fact, § or 29 U.S.C. In majority The majority has chosen to affirm interpreta- the dis- concedes that a literal 207(k) completely missal of § tion of 29 differ- fails to include the grounds ent stating thаt conservation wardens the law en- (“the “in exception, conservation wardens are fact a combina- forcement see at 493 Com- tion game policemen” and agency”). wardens mission or local and is not a state It is thus, 492; obvious, exempt At Department FLSA. see as the of Labor assert- compensatory created Commission was in 1984 to substitute time off for Chippewa tribes of Indians to enforce the tribes’ premium put overtime also to measure hours fishing, hunting gathering rights in Michi- worked a work month rather than a work gan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. ignores week....” This At 492-93. statement very local law fact that state and enforcement majority 2. The contends that state and local law undoubtedly through officers secured legal enforcement "have officers no federal enti- compensation bargaining collective define tlement to time and a half for overtime [and that] employment. and limit hours of employer their be would free within broad limits plain language concerning that the status are to take action argument, bound ed oral exemp- public agency law enforcement laws within enforcement of state jurisdiction include Indians. Not do twenty-four day tion does not area hours a conservation wardens fail place pres- a criminal violation takes in their law. hardly on the meet bor’s majority’s description of police conservation wardens public majority places premature attorney concede attorney’s concession for she can agency, requirement in truth and to concede that which is for the far too much I take as Department being employees police fact contrary issue with they officers. were emphasis are not.3 special like La- It Department ence. To be ees injury, life crimes.... public nance to “empowered by engaged and property ^[*] peace enforce and to of Labor ” exempted ^[*] and order law State statute laws from accidental or willful enforcement activities ^[*] prevent requires from the designed and to ^[*] or local and detect protect to maintain FLSA, ^[*] employ- ordi- both ^[*] be refer, majority It as is a misnomer “Typically, employees engaged law en- does, police” as “Indian to the wardens city police; forcement activities include completely lacking any evi- record sheriffs, police, district local under sher- special dence that these Indian conservation deputy iffs or regularly sheriffs who are police general powers to possess wardens such; employed paid court mar- criminal like arrest violators of state marshals; deputy shals or constables and murder, burglary, robbery, auto theft or local deputy regularly em- constables who do. police ordinances as officers The limited such; ployed paid border control deputization agreement between the Great agents; troopers highway patrol state Fish and Wildlife Lakes Indian Commission officers.” Department of Wisconsin’s the State (1993). (c) 553.211(a)(1); § 29 CFR Because (“DNR”), to Natural Resources which the the Commission conservation wardens are refers, empower majority fails to Commis- statutory authority to act as without sрecial sion conservation wardens panoply general possessing officers the full police- powers of arrest entrusted to powers, premature arrest I think it is this statute, fact, by men. In they qualify court to hold for the possess wardens do not even the limited agency exception law enforcement based power arrest that full-time DNR wardens upon solely an uninformed concession oral 29.05(2) may exercise. See Wis.Stat.Ann. argument and of a com- without the benefit (“[t]he authority granted in this [ad- section plete record. powers] apply does ditional arrest support finds for its also county special wardens or con- conservation holding in the the Commission con- wardens”) added). fact that (emphasis servation activities are servation wardens’ enforcement Moreover, authority limited the to enforce in This statement is over- seasonal nature. laws that state conservation the Indian accurately and reflect broad fails to possess special may do conservation wardens responsibilities. Fishing occurs at duties and in uniform when be exercised or deer, year, throughout various times they upon presentation duty and are on bear, hunting game takes in small and bird proper sharp This is con- identification. winter, wild place the fall and while rice general powers pos- trast arrest late summer po- gathering place takes by duly sworn and trained sessed syrup collecting in the winter.4 Thus duty maple lice not on officers who when official specialized way.” begrudg- initially questioned argument in a Such at oral officials When ing hardly foundation for an admission is a firm function of the Commission conserva- about the wardens, opinion. responded "they're essentially appellate tion she they game ... fish wardens enforce restric- treaty usufructuary also harvesting game.” 4. The include of fish and tions on tribal However, syrup just maple are persistent prodding gathering. Wild rice under gather. products "yea, they're the Indians law two of bench she stated enforcement thrоugh bootstrapping argu throughout implication” its to work the-wardens holding wardens just periods as the ment that because Indian year not short (“[t]he police, Congress are like must have intended majority suggests. at 493 work of See exception to include the usu- the “law enforcement” is seasonal because employees though even are not fructuary rights that it administers are sea- sonal”). majority’s reading Additionally, “public agency.” of a if the State of Wiscon- might very statute well lead to bank DNR had intended its contract with the sin security guards, shopping guards mall or Lakes Indian Fish and Com- Great Wildlife (the very deputization agreement) campus police, possess to clas-' who also limited mission arrest, general powers sify special powers war- but lack these Indian conservation qualifying police police powers, full it could also for the law enforcement ex dens as with join ception. expansion I in this expressly so as it did with the cannot have done unambiguous statutory lan truly police fоrce at the the clear and seasonal Wisconsin (29 207(k)), guage rewriting § Park. 42.- State Fair See Wisc.Stat.Ann. (“The 01(2) duly Congress park fair shall exer- enacted the U.S. state board police supervision park, prerogative three-judge panel of a cise over state fair duly appointed agents representa- Appeals. “The and its the Seventh Circuit Court arrest, warrant, plain meaning legislation may should be conclu tives with without sive, area, any person park except in case [in which] within such commit- the ‘rare ting against produce an the laws of the state literal of a statute will offense ”). demonstrably ... inten or the rules of board The State result at odds with the ” classifying obviously had no interest tions of its drafters.’ United States v. Ron Inc., 235, 242, police Enterprises, Indian wardens as or it would have Pair (1989) 1026, 1031, with the same invested Indian wardens Contractors, Inc., authority (quoting as it did the Wisconsin state fair v. Oceanic Griffin 564, 571, 3245, 3250, provided for the same in its con- 458 U.S. 102 S.Ct. (1982)); tract with the Commission. L.Ed.2d 973 see also Connecticut — Germain, U.S. -, -, Nat’l Bank v. majority’s willingness exрand 1146, 1149, 117 112 S.Ct. exception “law enforcement” to include Indi- (holding that “when the words of a statute special an wardens is inconsis- conservation ‘judicial inquiry unambiguous, ... Supreme holding tent with the U.S. Court’s ”) States, complete’ (quoting Rubin v. United Brock, Credit, Citicorp Indust. Inc. v. 424, 430, 698, 701, 97 L.Ed.2d (1981)); Boy L.Ed.2d 633 Welsh Scouts of (1987), unwilling in which the Court was (7th Cir.1993) America, 993 F.2d exemption “[t]o extend an to other than those (“We to read into the statute what refuse ‘plainly unmistakably within [the Congress declined to include. must ‘[W]e spirit.’” (quoting FLSA’s] terms and Id. Congress meaning assume understood the Phillips, Walling, A.H. Inc. v. ”) incorporated the words it into the [Act].’ (1945)). 89 L.Ed. 1095 (quoting Hanley Jones v. Dawson Cadillac Brock went to declare “where FLSA (7th Cir.1988)). provides exemptions par- ‘in detail and justify ticularity,’ preclude attempts we have this to further its found ” ‘enlargement by implication.’ (quoting plain language run Id. end around Products, Inc., by arguing Holly Hill Fruit statute that the FLSA was draft Addison 1221, 607, 617, 1215, ed in Indian concerns “were not 322 U.S. S.Ct. 1938 when (1944)).5 majority policy agen at of national L.Ed. 1488 is at- the forefront the however, by argument, ig- tempting justify “enlargement to such an da.” At 493. This attempts distinguish by ‘plainly unmistаkably [the within 5. The to Brock than those stating just Brock, Supreme that the Court did not look spirit.'" terms 483 U.S. at FLSA’s] plain language at the of the statute but it also Inc., 35, (quoting Phillips, at 2699 A.H. 107 S.Ct. "legislative examined intent.” This observation 493, 808) (emphasis at 324 U.S. 65 S.Ct. ignores very holding the of the case in which the added). exemption Court to "extend an to other refused consistently past fifty-five ‘liberally, the [FLSA] that for the construed ñores the fact opportunity apply to reaches years Congress has had the but the furthest consistent direction,’ during Congressional the a with recognizing fit to amend FLSA seen problems coverage un that broad period Indian have been is essential accom when light frequent powerful plish” goals. search Tony der all its and Susan Alamo disagree Labor, congressional oversight. 290, Because I Secretary Found. v. 471 U.S. holding 296, 1959, that majority’s 1953, the Indian 85 L.Ed.2d 278 by (1985) Lublin, exempted from the wardens are FLSA (quoting Mitchell McGau 207(k) agency § (public Assoc., 207, law enforce 211, 260, U.S.C. ghy & necessary exemption), (1959)). ment it is to deter 263, Congress’ Given applying mine to the whether FLSA powers plenary under Commerce Clause rights guaran Indians interfere with would the judiciary’s broad definition of com teed Indian See Smart v. State treaties. merce, question the without FLSA must be Farm 868 F.2d Insurance interpreted general applicabil as a statute of (7th Cir.1989); Donovan Coeur d’Alene McComb, ity. Corp. v. See Food Rutherford Farm, Tribal Cir. 1985). (1947) goal (discussing L.Ed. 1772 of the

FLSA). OF THE II. APPLICATION analysis, engaging Before in the Smart we THE FLSA TO INDIANS what, any, attempt must to determine trea- In Federal Power Comm’n Tuscarora ty rights argument, At oral are at stake. Nation, counsel for the Commission was unable to (1960), 543, 553, 4 the U.S. answer and in an exercise of futili- vacillated Supreme “general that a Court stated statute specific ty identify right what asked to persons applying to all includes terms of impaired by compliance would be with the property Indians and their interests.” Like- compliance require- with the or wise, “[gjeneral this court has stated stat- Ultimately, he ments the FLSA. claimed utes, widely ... inclusive whose concerns negatively impact that the would FLSA and do not affect traditional Indian or Tribal (collec- fish, gather Indians’ hunt and rights, applied to typically Indians.” tively rights”) “usufructuary on lands ceded Smart, A statute 868 F.2d at 932. Michigan, Minnesota and States of applicability apply if: does in a series of treaties dated Wisconsin “(1) exclusive of self- law touches require- how the and 1854. Just (2) matters; governance intramural purely impair treaty ments the FLSA would law to the tribe would Secondly, answer. rights he was unable to guaranteed trea- comply having claimed with the he that ties; proof by legislative histo- there is impose a financial FLSA rules burden would ry in- Congress other means some ability to would inhibit apply to tended not to Indians on [the law] manage regulate the off-reservation usu- reservation____” (quoting Id. Coeur compelling fructuary rights gave no ex- Farm, 1116) d’alene [here- Tribal regulation amples inhibit of how this would analysis].6 inafter the Smart treaty rights. There that the Labor is little doubt Fair reading After record and briefs as well general applica- Standards Act is a statute tape, argument I re- bility employees “engaged reviewing the oral for the Act covers applying rules production goods main unconvinced commerce or impact commerce,” 206(a), would § the FLSA to the Commission as well as rights. Regard- usufructuary Indians’ employed agency.” “individuals might 203(e)(2). ing argument § the FLSA affect Supreme “has Id. Court 2000e(b)(l) course, Rights U.S.C. analysis, unnecessary Act 6. This is when of of Act, with Disabilities Congress specifically The Americans declares a statute ex- l(5)(B)(i) (West See, Supp.1993). e.g., empts Title VII Civil Indians. of the Certainly, pay-scale employment the tion. Commission’s creative stated, wardens, allegation negative that the have a majority FLSA will the conservation impact financial is insufficient to refuse ‍‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‍en- vain for [a the treaties in “one searches subpoena forcement the administrative be- right employ wardens]. to conservation So impact cause financial alone is not one of the only rights to this pertains far as case the that we must deter- factors consider when hunt, fish, rights gath- to granted are mining whether a statute the cоvers Indians. system no mention of the for er. There is Smart, (asking See 868 F.2d at 932-33 rights, any let refer- enforcing these alone “(1) whether the law touches exclusive employment of those ence to terms the self-governance purely intramural mat- hired enforce it.” to (2) ters; the the law to the majority later that “there At 493. The adds guaranteed by tribe would right employ to treaty is no law enforcement treaties; proof by Indian there is organi- officers on terms the whatever legislative history other or some means that willing zation sets and the officers are to Congress apply intended not to [the law] to accept____” the At Not do trea- ”). on their ... reservation The con- employ ties fail a to create treaty the cern of Smart test is whether majority wardens as the con- conservation abrogated, rights are not whether statute cedes, also no in the trea- there is indication will introduce a modest economic burden. deputization agreement ties or the be- argument The record before us oral and the tween the of Wisconsin the Com- State put any forth devoid evidence the expressing provide mission an intent to for treaty right Commission of a that would be majority alleged “policemen” the that the has Nonetheless, abrogated the FLSA. be- explain, application will created. As I cause Commission claims the FLSA special FLSA to the conservation usufructuary rights guar- would impact, if wardens an indirect will treaties, upon anteed it is incumbent any, on the Commission. The Commission allegation me to refute this with the has failed to direct interference delineate analysis. application of the Smart treaty rights with nor does the record before Application of the doctrine to Smart identify us that a direct interference with lacking facts in the case is before us treaty rights will occur. opinion. majority employing than Rather I unpersuaded by am Commis- likewise adopted by the test this court determine argument impose sion’s that the FLSA would general applica- a federal whether statute of financial burden the Indians will Smart, Indians, bility covers the i.e. ma- broad, jeopardize treaty rights. ever- This jority opted has to defer to a concern for expanding, speculative all-inclusive and um- comity. idea “[t]he states legislation “impact allegation brella will comity treating sovereigns, including —of treaty rights” must have some limits. quasi-sovereigns such and Indian states federal cannot continue to be held courts tribes, greater than respect other liti- conjec- captive by allegations pure based on gants us to exercise forbearance in —counsels one, I, ture. believe the trial court’s for construing legislation upon to intrude refusal to the straw enforce is regulatory sovereign of a central functions ' proverbial that breaks the camel’s back. dispute, At 495. I entity.” do not signifi- Whether the FLSA would result in fact, “comity agree theory with the is a cant is a financial burden statutory interpreta- proper consideration in id., fact that un- tion,” is unknown and will remain object invoking theory I but government аnalysis known until such time as the very we have as a substitute opportunity had an examine determining comity review and adopted payroll to deter- very Commission’s records that we have a appropriate. fact hours, (Smart) wardens, mine a statute of the number to determine when test compensatory payment applicability applies to the Indian well as the time and regula- policies argument population assumes that some federal Any Commission. there is an nothing specula- tory cover Indians unless contrary pure

501 Smart, test, coverage F.2d at 932 found that FLSA of the Com exemption. 868 express impinge upon ... whose concerns are mission “would one of the (“[g]eneral self-gover affect traditional widely aspects and do not tribes’ most essential inclusive typically applied rights, ability manage regulate are or Tribal nance: their to and see, Indians”); Industry e.g.,Lumber Pen treaty rights.” their exercise of their Mar Springs Forest Products Fund v. Warm Fish and sion tin v. Great Lakes Indian Wildlife (9th Cir.1991) Industries, (ap Comm’n, 92-C-409-C, 939 F.2d 683 1992 No. WL 300841 еnterprise); *9, 15883, an Indian plying ERISA to at *24 at 1992 U.S. Dist. Lexis Occupational 1992). Dep’t (W.D.Wis. Labor United States court Oct. The district (OSHRC), 935 Safety & Health Rev. Comm’n on two counts. Even if there was mistaken Cir.1991) (9th (applying 186-187 F.2d usufructuary treaty right regulate Smart, businesses); 868 (which to Indian not), OSHA there is ERISA); (applying Coeur right manage those usufructu- to enforce Farm, (ap 751 F.2d Tribal d’Alene “purely ary rights is neither “exclusive” nor business). Although to tribal plying OSHA intramural,” under Smart. acknowledges States United Smart Exclusivity 1. Lack of rights to the given specified but limited has Smart, treaties, exclusivity regarding tribal neither nor The absence of through case, treaty rights fact that self-governance has held that is evident from the other subsequent legislative regulation enact of off-res prevail over tribal enforcement and In Congress.7 usufructuary rights States is shared with ments United ervation fact, “[fjederalism uniquely regulation usu- Smart held the states. State of Indian States; simply no there is Tribe fructuary rights concerns falls under state’s (em Smart, counterpart." 868 F.2d at 936 protect its natural resources and its power to added). Wisconsin, citizеns; of this lan implication phasis Lac Oreilles v. Courte (W.D.Wis.1987) obvious, ap (LCO comity has never been guage is F.Supp. IV), principle hence, law as a plied prior usufructuary rights case tribal betioeen subject regulation should dictate outcomes interests of to state conflicts Treaty rights. safety. legislation and Indian health conservation federal reason, Smart, Wisconsin, which we are bound For this Lac Oreilles v. Courte follow, (7th Cir.1985) (LCO II); IV, inquiries to deter set forth three LCO general applicabili mine whether a statute of ease law F.Supp. at 1235-39. As the majority’s clear, regu ty governs the Indians. the tribes’ above makes invoking general unique approach of no means off-reservation activities late judicial unsupported comity the states. principle but must be shared with exclusive step-by- (“‘ordinarily replace IV, must not precedent F.Supp. at 1241 LCO facts before step application possess of Smart to the concurrent state and the tribe ...’”) (quoting regulate us. United power to n. 4 Washington, 520 F.2d States Sеlf-governance A. Tribal denied, Cir.1975), cert. (1976)). in For above, explained a statute As (1) stance, Department of Natural if: Wisconsin the Indians applicability excludes (“DNR”) wardens conservation self-gover- Resources law touches exclusive (2) matters; citations to tribal ap- authorized to issue purely intramural nance violating fishing regula treaty members would plication of the law Wisconsin, tions, history Lac Courte Oreilles legislative reveals rights; (LCO VI). 1038 (W.D.Wis.1989) F.Supp. cover the congressional intent not to clear may Smart, likewise “observe The DNR wardens F.2d at 932-33. Indians. muskellunge harvest- any walleye or court, monitor very watered down applying a district States, absolute, Indian Tribes Unlike the for Con- sessed.... sovereignty is not "[Indian] limit, subject sovereignty, to com- possess limited power gress plenary by Congress....” self-governance plete defeasance powers of even eliminate omitted). Smart, (citations pos- traditionally 868 F.2d at 932 may have which Tribes 502 hunting gathering involve relations be- by spearing or net- and undertake

ing plaintiffs State en- tween Indians and non-Indians and thus ting.” Id. at 1060. Concurrent usufructuary “purely of off-reservation are not intramural.” See forcement definition hunting bearing Furthermore, fur applies to rights also exercise of these usufruc- id. game, Lac Courte Oreilles and small tuary rights quite animals distinct determin- from Wisconsin, 1400, 1402, F.Supp. 1413 740 membership, ing tribal domestic relations (LCO VII), (W.D.Wis.1990) gathering miscel- (functions rules of inheritance the courts and products, Lac Courte Oreilles intramural”). laneous forest “purely have deemed Wisconsin, 1262, F.Supp. 1275-76 758 recently Supreme reaffirmed The Court (W.D.Wis.1991) (LCO IX), enforcing principle sovereignty of limited tribal boating laws. Lac Courte Oreilles v. state — Bourland, -, South Dakota v. U.S. (W.D.Wis. Wisconsin, 321, F.Supp. 325 775 2319, -, 2309, 124 606 113 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 1991) (LCO X). preceding authorities (1993), stating power “the ‘exercise of tribal quite it obvious the Commission make necessary protect beyond what is tribal regu- possessed the exclusive never self-government or to control internal rela- usufructuary rights and late off-reservation dependent sta- tions is inconsistent with qualify exemption thus does not tribes, cannot tus of the and so survive with- grоunds on the that the FLSA would FLSA ” express congressional delegation.’ out upon rights self-governance.8 impinge Montana, 564, (quoting 101 450 U.S. at S.Ct. Purely 2. Not Intramural Matter 1258). at The Commission should not be “treaty to wave an unbridled umbrella of able Secondly, as is likewise evident from the legis- rights” and avoid of federal authorities, spe- above-cited purpose lation that has as its the elimination cial conservation wardens’ activities are not of “labor conditions detrimental to the main- “purely intramural” as the off-reservation living tenance of the minimum standard of usufructuary rights necessarily involve both health, necessary efficiency (When engaging in Indians and non-Indians. workers____” well-being of 29 U.S.C. fishing, hunting gather- off-reservation explanation, the district court has Without exercising ing, the individual Indians these principle self-govern- of tribal stretched rights commonly with non- come contact holding ment in the extent that Indians). “[t]o [the Supreme Court and this court to take into account Commission] “purely have determined that intramural” deciding Fair Labor Standards Act things determining matters include like tribal wardens, deploy ability its exer- relations, how to its membership, domestic and rules of States, treaty rights directly cise its is affected inheritance. Montana v. United Martin, 544, 563-65, 1245, 1257-58, critically.” *8, WL U.S. S.Ct. (1981); Smart, 932; Dist. at *22. 868 F.2d at 1992 Lexis 15883 Farm, emphatic language district court’s fails to Coeur d’Alene Tribal Wheeler, disguise reasoning. simply 1116. In lack of There United States v. 435 U.S. its (1978), 55 L.Ed.2d 303 is no evidence the record that self-governance jeopardy. Court stated that tribes had lost Because many sovereignty including regulation attributes of of off-reserva- usufructuary rights “involving those areas the relations between tion is neither exclusive intramural, improperly court an Indian tribe and non-members of the nor the district tribe____” impinged upon 1087. It is Id. at S.Ct. at held FLSA Indeed, fishing, self-governance. impact of the rather obvious that off-reservation 2069, 2081, regulation 65 L.Ed.2d 10 8. The extensive of off-reservation usu- Martinez, fructuary rights by recog- Clara Pueblo v. the State of Wisconsin Santa 56 L.Ed.2d 106 nized in the Lac Courte Oreilles cases confirms limit, authority government ("Congress plenary the faсt that the federal its —with may apply powers greater authority regulate local self- or eliminate Indians — pos- 313, government sess”); the less burdens of the FLSA to the which the tribes otherwise intrusive Wheeler, e.g., Washington States v. Commission. See United Confederat- Reservation, (1978). ed Tribes Colville Indian treaty rights exclude non-Indians from the reservation will on off-reservation FLSA significant applicability Occupational than that of barred likely much less Safe be Act, safety §§ ty conseivation and Health above-cited State (1988), to an on-reservation sawmill. The laws. Ninth held that the conflict between a Circuit Treaty Rights Abrogation B. (OSHA) treaty right statute and a must be prevent “direct” rather than to considering legisla federal attenuated whether When application general of a federal treaty rights this court stated statute to abrogates tion OSHRC, treaty the Indians. “[s]imply because a 935 F.2d 186. The Smart by necessity compel requirement a conclu a does not ‍‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‍for direct conflict between a exists general applica treaty statute of sion that federal and statute is reflected U.S. Su binding — bility preme asking not on an Indiana tribe decisions is Court whether the application is whether abrogates treaty rights. The critical issue statute See United right Dion, jeopardize 734, 738-40, that is the statute would States v. Smart, treaty.” 2216, F.2d at 2219-20, secured S.Ct. 90 L.Ed.2d 767 added). language in (emphasis (holding Eagle that the Protection Act “abro plainly at odds with the district Smart gates” treaty right eagles); to hunt Wash the facts be application of Smart to court’s ington Washington v. State Commercial any treaty right If modification of a Ass’n, fore us. Passenger Fishing Vessel application of a federal statute with barred 61 L.Ed.2d 823 (like FLSA), then general applicability treaty (holding fishing that international does Nation, principle from Tuscarora Indian “abrogate” fishing rights), modi 553, 362 U.S. at 80 S.Ct. fied, 444 U.S. 62 L.Ed.2d apply to Indians would be cast aside (1979); Farm, d'Alene Tribal Coeur eviscerated. That a statute must do (requiring F.2d at 1116 that the federal stat “modify” treaty right for the more than treaty just “abrogate” ute rather than exempted is evident from thе Indians to be them). fact that on several occasions courts have to the Application of the FLSA Commis- applied general statutes to the Indi federal great- will have sion conservation wardens no Industry ans. See Lumber Pension Fund treaty rights applica- on Indian than er effect Industries, Springs Forest Products Warm regulatory tion of other federal statutes like (9th Cir.1991) (applying 939 F.2d 683 ERISA ERISA and OSHA which the courts Dep’t enterprise); to an Indian United States already upheld. It is evident that the De- Occupational Safety Health Labor v. & partment merely trying pre- to of Labor (OSHRC), 186- Rev. Comm’n employees of the Commission vent the Indian (9th Cir.1991) (applying OSHA to Indian being citizens treated as second-class businesses); Smart, (ap 868 F.2d at 932-36 by assuring pro- the same receive Farm, ERISA); plying Coeur d'Alene Tribal employees covered under tection as all other (applying 751 F.2d at 1115 OSHA to tribal Certainly the mere fact that De- Act. business); Tribes Warm Confederated merely request partment inspectors of Labor Kurtz, Springs Reservation v. 691 F.2d 878 through power subpoena Cir.1982) (holding that and their tribes payroll records cannot of itself con- examine subject members are to federal excise taxes treaty I abrogation rights. Thus stitute express exemption appears), cert. de unless agreement Department of am in with the nied, argument oral that en- Labor’s contention at (1983); States, Fry United subpoena forcement of the administrative (9th Cir.1977) (applying 557 F.2d 646 federal application FLSA Commis- denied, businesses), tax laws to Indian cert. impact no on the sion would have direct hunt, gather. Indians’ fish and Burns, 529 F.2d 114 United States (9th Cir.1975) us, (holding gun con In federal the case before Indians). OSHRC, applies any trol law In failed to set forth much less document submitting treaty right logical Indians maintained that their of how reason evidence to an police powers administrative or to the Fair bestow full on the Indian war- dens, Act will have easily just Labor Standards direct it could have done so as it impact treaty right. aon Just because the did with the seasonal force at the state ever-expanding Commission has invoked grounds. fair Not do the wardens fail “impact treaty rights” umbrella of to chal- qualify agency law enforce- lenge application of the FLSA does not mean exemption, ment of the Smart jurisprudence that we should abandon sound test reveals that the Fair Labor Standards addressing the conflict. The courts must Act will not the Commission’s trea- ever-growing, all-expansive in to the Thus, cave ty rights. prudent proper treaty rights claim that are affected unless disposition of this case is to it remand initially identify specific the claimants what proceedings pursuant further to Circuit Rule treaty right is at stake and how it is affected. 36, with Depart- instructions to enforce the allegedly aWhen federal statute comes in subpoena. Only ment of Labor compil- after treaty rights, conflict with Indian the case ing complete may record the district court apply legal law mandates that we standard properly or this court determine whether the alleged treaty right to ascertain if the exists Fair Labor abrogatеs Standards Act abrogated. whether it is fact treaty rights. respectfully I possibility mere of the FLSA Dissent. may to Commission conservation wardens re- quire employment the Commission to alter

practices wages certainly additional ‍‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‍jeopardizing usufructuary

falls far short of

rights guaranteed by treaties much less ab-

rogating them. develop- Without further

ment of the record we will never know

applying the FLSA to the Commission will abrogate treaty however, certain, rights; it is America, UNITED STATES of presented, based on the evidence Plaintiff-Appellee, Commission has any treaty failed to delineate abrogated by that would be the FLSA. Finally, as the acknowledges, Larry BALLENTINE, C. Defendant- nothing legislative history evinces a Appellant. congressional exempt intent to the Indians No. 92-3862. FLSA; from the foregoing at 493. As the clear, discussion makes the Commission has Appeals, United States Court of failed to establish one of the three Seventh Circuit. grounds exempting in Smart Argued May 1993. Accordingly, from the FLSA. I am of the opinion premature it that was for the district Sept. Decided 1993. matter, court to rule aas of law that Rehearing Suggestion Rehearing subject Commission is not to the FLSA. En Banc Denied Oct.

III. CONCLUSION unpersuaded by majority’s

I am at-

tempting argument to make a well-reasoned classify

based on ease law and the statute to special po- conservation wardens as 207(k) exempted

liceman from 29 U.S.C. (1)

because: the Indian wardens are (2)

employees agency, of a do not powers policemen,

have the arrest had the State Wisconsin desired

Case Details

Case Name: Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor v. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Date Published: Dec 9, 1993

Citation: 4 F.3d 490

Docket Number: 92-4035

Court Abbreviation: 7th Cir.