18 NICS App. 24, SANDSTROM v. KALISPEL (July 2020)
IN THE KALISPEL TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
KALISPEL INDIAN RESERVATION
USK, WASHINGTON
Daniel Sandstrom, Garry Campbell, Michael Gilbert, David Fanning, Scott Fanning, and Kathleen Horsfall, Petitioners/Appellants,
v.
Kalispel Tribe of Indians, Chairman, Glen Nenema, Vice Chairman, Curt Holms, Secretary, Betty Jo Piengkman, Council Member, Nikolas Pierre, Council Member, James Bigsmoke, and Kalispel Enrollment Department, Respondents/Appellees.
NO. 2019-0001-AP-EN (July 6, 2020)
SYLLABUS*
Tribal council passed resolution putting hold on tribal enrollment applications from individuals relinquishing from other tribes. Appellants sought to have tribe’s interpretation of its enrollment procedures declared unconstitutional and to direct tribe to accept their applications for tribal membership. Tribe argued trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear matter. Trial court deemed it had jurisdiction and dismissed matter based on council’s authority to enact laws under tribe’s constitution. Appellants argued trial court failed to address the constitutional grounds they raised. Court of Appeals found that trial court had jurisdiction over this civil action based on authority granted in the code. Court of Appeals reversed trial court’s dismissal and remanded to trial court so court can create a record and consider whether resolution in question conforms to tribe’s constitution.
|
Before: |
Randy A. Doucet, Chief Justice; Mary Finkbonner Cardoza, Justice; Theresa Thin Elk, Justice. |
|
Appearances: |
Paula M. Fisher, Attorney for the Petitioners/Appellants. Lorraine Parlange, Senior Attorney, and Alex Hilborn, Spokesperson for Respondents/Appellees. |
OPINION
Per curiam
BACKGROUND
18 NICS App. 24, SANDSTROM v. KALISPEL (July 2020) p. 25
The Petitioners/Appellants sought mandamus and declaratory relief to have the Kalispel Tribe’s interpretation of its enrollment procedures declared unconstitutional, and to direct the Respondents/Appellees to accept their applications for membership in the Kalispel Tribe. The Tribe filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds the Tribal Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because it is a Legislative Court, not an independent court, and the Tribal Council has sole authority to decide the issues raised by the Petitioners/Appellants. The Tribal Court determined it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. However, the Tribal Court dismissed based on the Tribal Council’s authority to enact laws for the benefit of the Tribe under the Kalispel Constitution.
The Tribal Council passed Resolution 2003-43, which formalized the Tribal Council’s September 11, 2001, action form that placed a hold, until further notice, on all tribal enrollment applications from individuals relinquishing from other tribes. Resolution 2003-43 stops the Petitioners from having their enrollment applications acted upon. The Tribal Court pointed out that Resolution 2003-43 was not challenged by the general membership as provided for in the Tribe’s Constitution, therefore the Resolution was legally binding and the Petitioners’ did not meet the burden to show a plausible claim for relief under the laws of the Kalispel Tribe. The Tribal Court granted the Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss.
Petitioners/Appellants appealed asserting that the Tribal Court failed to address the constitutional grounds raised by the Petitioner/Appellants and instead based the dismissal on grounds not raised by the Respondent/Appellees, without hearing or oral argument on the merits of their claims. The Petitioner/Appellants seek to have the Tribal Court’s decision to dismiss reversed and remanded.
OPINION
We first address the issue of whether the Tribal Court has jurisdiction to hear this case. The argument made by the Tribe regarding subject matter jurisdiction reads the Court’s jurisdiction too narrowly. They argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction because there is no enrollment code that has been promulgated by the Business Committee that vests jurisdiction in enrollment matters in the Court. However, this is a constitutional issue more than an enrollment issue, and even federal district courts have federal question jurisdiction when the matter deals with the United States Constitution. In addition, Chapter 3 of the Kalispel Law and Order Code grants the Court jurisdiction over all civil actions that arise within the exterior boundaries of the Kalispel Reservation. Since this is a civil action the Court has jurisdiction to hear it. This is further buttressed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Santa Clara Pueblo v Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978), in which the Supreme Court acknowledged that in purely intratribal matters jurisdiction rests with the tribal court forums to adjudicate.
In reviewing the Constitution and Bylaws of the Kalispel Indian Community, and Resolution 2003-43, we believe further consideration should be given by the Tribal Court as to whether Resolution 2003-43 conforms to the Kalispel Constitution. In the July 27, 1967, Constitution and Bylaws of the Kalispel Indian Community, Art II, Sec. 2 provided that, “The business committee shall have the power to enact ordinances subject to this revised constitution and bylaws…governing future membership.” The Kalispel Constitution was amended in 1976. Amendment III states that “Article II of the constitution, Membership, shall be amended in its
18 NICS App. 24, SANDSTROM v. KALISPEL (July 2020) p. 26
entirety.” Section 2 of Article II was deleted. Amendment III of the Kalispel Constitution also added a class of persons who shall be members of the Tribe, “All children born to any member of the Kalispel Indian Community prior to July 27, 1967 and all children of one-fourth or more degree of Indian blood, born on or after July 27, 1967 to any member of the Kalispel Indian Community who is one-fourth or more degree Kalispel Indian blood.”
The Constitution does not address whether relinquishing membership from another Tribe is a prohibition to membership. It only sets forth who shall be members. Neither the Tribal Council’s September 11, 2001 Action Form, nor Resolution 2003-43 give any explanation or provide findings as to why it was in the best interests of the Kalipel Tribe to place a hold, until further notice, on all tribal enrollment applications from individuals relinquishing from other tribes. Without Tribal Council findings or some explanation in the action form or resolution, the Tribal Council’s action appears to be arbitrary.
We therefore reverse the Tribal Court’s decision granting the Tribe’s Motion to Dismiss and remand back for the Tribal Court to create a record and make a decision taking into consideration the following issues:
1. Is there a historical record setting forth the Tribe’s rational and interest in adopting Resolution 2003-43?
2. Does the historical record of the Kalispel Constitution’s Amendment III show the intent of this amendment? Was this amendment only supposed to apply to Section I of Article II or both Section 1 and Section 2?
3. Was the letter from the BIA Northwest Regional Director dated April 6, 2011 sufficient to include Subsection (2) as part of the Kalispel Constitution when it had otherwise been eliminated by vote and certification of the Kalispel Tribe in March 1976, as well as approval by the BIA?
4. If Article II, Section 2 remains intact, does Resolution 2003-43 violate the Kalispel Constitution in some other way – namely, does it violate Article II, Section 1 by being an impermissible restriction on the qualifications of membership?
5. Does the Court have the power to entertain Mandamus actions or actions for Declaratory Relief? Does sovereign immunity apply to Writs of Mandamus and Declaratory Relief that do not request money damages from the Tribe as in a lawsuit?
The syllabus is not a part of the Court’s Opinion. The syllabus is a summary of the Opinion prepared by the publishers of this reporter only for the convenience of the reader. Therefore, the syllabus should not be cited in whole or part as legal authority. Only the Opinion, which follows the syllabus, may be cited as legal authority.