Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez

Supreme Court of the United States · 1978 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsIndian Civil Rights ActTribal SovereigntySovereign ImmunityImplied Cause of ActionIndian Civil Rights ActICRA25 U.S.C. § 1302

Facts

Santa Clara Pueblo had enacted a membership ordinance providing membership to children of male tribal members who married outside the tribe, but denying membership to children of female tribal members who married outside the tribe. Respondent Julia Martinez, a tribal member, married a Navajo man, and their daughter Audrey Martinez and Julia's other children were excluded from tribal membership under the ordinance. Because of that exclusion, the children could not vote in tribal elections, hold secular tribal office, remain on the reservation after their mother's death, or inherit her home or possessory interests in communal lands. After unsuccessfully attempting to persuade the tribe to change the rule, respondents brought this federal action alleging the ordinance violated the equal protection provision of 25 U.S.C. § 1302(8).

Issue

Does Title I of the Indian Civil Rights Act impliedly authorize a federal cause of action for declaratory or injunctive relief against an Indian tribe or tribal officers to challenge a tribal membership ordinance as violating § 1302? Relatedly, may such a suit proceed against the tribe itself notwithstanding tribal sovereign immunity?

Rule

Indian tribes retain sovereign immunity from suit unless Congress unequivocally expresses a waiver; such a waiver cannot be implied. Title I of the ICRA, which expressly provides only a federal habeas remedy in § 1303, does not impliedly authorize federal civil actions for declaratory or injunctive relief against either the tribe or tribal officers for alleged violations of § 1302.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Redbird, a member of the Cedar Mesa Tribe in Arizona, files suit in federal district court against the tribe itself. She seeks an injunction barring enforcement of a tribal campaign rule that she argues violates the equal-protection language of 25 U.S.C. § 1302.

What is the strongest basis for dismissing Nina's claim against the tribe?

Explanation. The majority held that tribes retain sovereign immunity unless Congress clearly says otherwise, and such a waiver cannot be implied. Title I of the ICRA contains no express authorization subjecting tribes to federal suits for declaratory or injunctive relief, so a federal civil action against the tribe itself is barred.