Attorney: Heather
Kendall-Miller
Case Update
On June 6th, 2004 the Native American
Rights Fund filed an amicus brief on
behalf of a number of Alaska Tribes in
the Alaska Supreme Court in Curiung
v. Alaska. The question presented in
Curiung is whether federally recognized
Tribes can bring suit under Section 1983
in state court on behalf of themselves
and their members to vindicate important
statutory rights under the ICWA and
other federal and state laws after the
United States Supreme Court ruling in
Inyo County. Inyo
County involved the
core issue of whether the Paiute
Shoshone Indian Community was
immune from execution of a state search
warrant of tribal employment records
issued in connection with the
investigation of potential off-reservation
welfare fraud by certain unnamed tribal
employees. The Tribe sought declaratory
and injunctive relief against the County
and its officers on the ground that they
had exceeded their jurisdiction because
the warrant interfered with the Tribe's
sovereign immunity and its right to self-
government. The Tribe also sought
compensatory damages under Section
1983 for violation of the Tribe's rights.
The Supreme Court held that Tribes are
not persons for purposes of bringing
Section 1983 claims against a state for
damages for infringement of sovereign
interests. In Curiung, however, the amici
tribes argue that Inyo
County does not
preclude their Section 1983 claims
because the rights asserted are private
rights that are grounded in statute.
On December 15, 2006 we received a
unanimous decision in our favor by the
Alaska Supreme Court upholding a
Tribes right to bring a 1983 action on
behalf of its members under a parens
patriae theory. The case was remanded
to the superior court for a trial on the
merits. Settlement discussions have
been scheduled to take place over the
winter ‘08.
|
