Facebook Twitter Email
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2002

Applying Supreme Court precedent seen as negative to Indian rights, a federal appeals court last week refused to uphold tribal authority over a health clinic located on tribal land.

In a unanimous ruling, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals questioned the reach of tribal sovereignty. A three-judge panel said there is a "heavy presumption" against a tribal court's ability to resolve disputes involving the clinic.

The finding was based on Nevada v. Hicks, a pivotal 2001 Supreme Court ruling in which a tribal court was denied the right to hear a dispute involving state officials accused of violating tribal and federal law. At a rally in Washington, D.C., last week, tribal leaders repeatedly referred to the case as a hindrance to self-determination.

"Our sovereignty has been under attack," said National Congress of American Indians President Tex Hall.

At issue in the 10th Circuit case is a clinic on the Navajo Nation in southeastern Utah. It is currently operated by the tribe through a health care management firm.

But at the time of the dispute, it was run by the state and funded by a state-managed tribal trust account. Three employees who were fired sued the clinic, county officials and a state political subdivision, alleging numerous tribal and federal infractions.

Navajo District Judge Raymond Begaye said the state's control didn't bar him from asserting jurisdiction. So he awarded the plaintiffs -- who are non-Indian -- their jobs back, barred clinic managers from entering the reservation and imposed $10,000 in daily fines on the state and attorneys involved.

The 10th Circuit did not determine whether Begaye's ruling was proper with respect to the clinic. The panel instead set aside an earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge Dale A. Kimball -- who dismissed the case in December 2000 on sovereign immunity grounds -- with instructions to proceed in light of Hicks.

The appeals court, however, agreed to throw out the fines and sanctions imposed by the Navajo judge.

"[I]t is a long leap, and one we are unwilling to take, to suggest that the action taken by the Navajo court in this case was necessary to protect Navajo self-government or control its internal relations," wrote Circuit Judge Carlos Lucero for the majority.

Tribal leaders have launched a campaign to limit the effects of the Hicks ruling. They are seeking legislation to affirm tribal civil and criminal jurisdiction over tribal land.

Get the Case:
MACARTHUR v. SAN JUAN HEALTH SERVICES DISTRICT No. 014001 - 10/07/02 (10th Cir. October 7, 2002)

Relevant Links:
Navajo Nation - http://www.navajo.org

Related Stories:
Tribes rally in support of sovereignty (10/8)
Tribes seek to overturn Supreme Court (2/27)
Inouye challenges tribes on sovereignty (2/26)
Tribe wants jurisdiction over clinic (01/15)
Supreme Court bars state officials from tribal suit (6/26)
O'Connor defends tribes amidst squabbling (6/26)