Tuesday, May 20, 2003 | 9:23 a.m.
WASHINGTON -- Indian tribes may not sue authorities to stop searches under a federal civil rights law, the Supreme Court ruled Monday. But it sidestepped the larger issue of whether tribes have immunity from searches.
The court unanimously threw out a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case involving California's Bishop Paiute Tribe. It asked lower courts to determine whether tribes have another basis on which to assert their immunity.
The dispute arose during an investigation by Inyo County, east of the Sierra Nevada on California's eastern border, of three employees of the tribe's casino whose names also appeared on welfare rolls. In March 2000 a county investigator and sheriff's deputies armed with a bolt cutter searched and seized personnel and pay records from the tribal Paiute Palace Casino in Bishop, Calif.
When authorities later sought more records, the tribe sued in federal court. A judge dismissed the lawsuit, but the San Francisco-based appeals court agreed with the tribe.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said federal law is intended to allow individuals to sue when they believe their constitutional rights have been infringed.
"We hold that, in the situation here presented, the tribe does not qualify as a 'person' who may sue," Ginsburg wrote.
Ralph LaPera, a lawyer for the tribe in Bishop, said Monday's decision was "not anti-Indian government" in that the court did not rule that the county has the authority to seize tribal records.
The county, a dozen states, sheriffs across the nation and California prosecutors argued that tribes could impede local criminal investigations if they were allowed to withhold tribal documents sought with valid warrants.
The court previously ruled that state authorities may enter an Indian reservation to investigate or prosecute off-reservation violations of state law, including questioning a tribe's members and searching personal property.
John D. Kirby, a San Diego lawyer who represents Inyo, called the court ruling a "significant victory." The county dismissed the welfare fraud case against the casino employees because it could not obtain the documents it needed, Kirby said.
The investigation is continuing, he said.
archive
