COLLIFLOWER v FORT BELKNAP COMMUNI

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-275 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE S T A T E O F MONTANA 1981 MADELINE COLLIFLOWER, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , VS. THE FORT BELKNAP COMMUNITY C O U N C I L , THE F O R T BELKNAP T R I B E O F I N D I A N S and THE F O R T BELKNAP COMMUNITY A C T I O N PROGRAM, D e f e n d a n t s and R e s p o n d e n t s . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e T w e l f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of B l a i n e . H o n o r a b l e B. W. T h o m a s , Judge p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : For A p p e l l a n t : Spangelo L a w F i r m , H a v r e , M o n t a n a J a m e s Spangelo a r g u e d , H a v r e , M o n t a n a For R e s p o n d e n t s : F r a n c i s X . L a m e b u l l argued, H a r l e m , M o n t a n a Submitted: Decided: Clerk A p r i l 24, , gg- 5 ' 1981 s/ M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. t h e Court. Morrison, J r . , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f Madeline C o l l i f l o w e r , a n e n r o l l e d member of t h e F o r t Belknap ~ r i b e ,a p p e a l s from a n o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e T w e l f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , B l a i n e County, g r a n t i n g t h e r e s p o n d e n t s 1 motion t o d i s m i s s and r e n d e r i n g moot h e r motion f o r summary judgment. Respondents1 motion t o d i s m i s s was made a f t e r i t s answer and, t h e r e f o r e , i s c o n s i d e r e d a motion f o r judgment on t h e p l e a d i n g s . Rule 1 2 ( c ) , M.R.Civ.P. Additionally the a p p e l l a n t ' s complaint f a i l e d t o s p e c i f i c a l l y allege jurisdiction, however, we a r e a b l e t o g l e a n s u f f i c i e n t f a c t s from t h e p l e a d i n g s t o r e s o l v e t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l issue. The a p p e l l a n t was h i r e d by t h e F o r t Belknap T r i b e ( t r i b e ) i n May of 1972 a s d i r e c t o r of t h e F o r t Belknap I n d i a n Community A c t i o n Program (CAP). The program w a s funded under a g r a n t from t h e O f f i c e of N a t i v e American Programs of t h e Department of H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n and W e l f a r e and was i n t e n d e d f o r t h e promotion o f t r i b a l economic s e l f sufficiency. The a p p e l l a n t was f i r e d J u n e 23, 1976, f o l l o w - i n g a h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e F o r t Belknap Community Council c o n c e r n i n g a l l e g a t i o n s of o f f i c i a l n e g l e c t and g r o s s m i s managemen t. The a p p e l l a n t f i r s t sued t h e r e s p o n d e n t s i n f e d e r a l c o u r t , a l l e g i n g wrongful t e r m i n a t i o n of employment. J a n u a r y 1 9 , 1979, t h e c a s e was d i s m i s s e d . On The f e d e r a l c o u r t h e l d t h e a c t i o n of t h e F o r t Belknap Community c o u n c i l was i n a "wholly governmental c a p a c i t y " , and t h e r e f o r e , t h e y were immune from s u i t . The a p p e l l a n t t h e n f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t i n t h e T w e l f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , which i s t h e b a s i s of t h i s a p p e a l , a l l e g - i n g b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t , t o r t and d e n i a l of due p r o c e s s . The lower c o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h e a c t i o n i n i t s o r d e r of J u l y 7, "The C o u r t c o n c l u d e s t h a t t h e a c t i v i t i e s w e d e a l w i t h h e r e a r e governmental f u n c t i o n s of t h e t r i b a l e n t i t y ; t h a t t h e F o r t Belknap I n d i a n Community and i t s a g e n c i e s who a r e d e f e n d a n t s i n t h i s a c t i o n a r e immune from s u i t i n t h e a b s e n c e of a n e x p r e s s w a i v e r ; t h a t t h e r e h a s been no s u c h waiver a s t o the t r i b a l entity. Consequently, d e f e n d a n t ' s mot i o n t o d i s m i s s s h o u l d be g r a n t e d . Plaintiff's motion w i l l t h e r e b y be r e n d e r e d moot." The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d a r e (1) whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g of p u r e l y governmental a c t i v i t y by t h e t r i b e i s s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e c o r d and ( 2 ) whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y r e j e c t e d a p p e l l a n t ' s c l a i m of an i m p l i e d w a i v e r of t r i b a l immunity. W agree with t h e D i s t r i c t Court e and a f f i r m i t s o r d e r . B e f o r e d i s c u s s i n g t h e m e r i t s of t h i s a p p e a l , we must b r i e f l y e x p l a i n t h e i n t e r n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e F o r t Belknap T r i b e . Under a u t h o r i t y of t h e I n d i a n R e o r g a n i z a t i o n Act of J u n e 1 8 , 1934, Ch. 576, 48 S t a t . 984, - amended, as §§ 461-479, 25 U.S.C., I n d i a n s were a u t h o r i z e d t o o r g a n i z e f o r p u r p o s e s of l o c a l self-government through t h e a d o p t i o n of c o n s t i t u - t i o n s ( s e c t i o n 1 6 ) and c o r p o r a t e c h a r t e r s ( s e c t i o n 1 7 ) . F o r t Belknap T r i b e r a t i f i e d both. The I t s c o n s t i t u t i o n was r a t i - f i e d i n 1935, and i t s c o r p o r a t e c h a r t e r i n 1937. The g e n e r a l d i f f e r e n c e between c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and c o r p o r a t e e n t i t i e s was d i s c u s s e d i n a n o p i n i o n of t h e S o l i c i t o r , Department of t h e I n t e r i o r : "The purpose of Congress i n e n a c t i n g S e c t i o n 16 of t h e I n d i a n R e o r g a n i z a t i o n Act was t o f a c i l i t a t e and t o s t a b i l i z e t h e t r i b a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of I n d i a n s r e s i d i n g on t h e same r e s e r v a t i o n , - f o r t h e i r common I t p r o v i d e d t h e i r p o l i t i c a l organi-zawelfare. The p u r p o s e of Congress i n e n a c t i n g S e c t i o n tion. 17 of t h e I n d i a n R e o r g a n i z a t i o n Act w a s t o empower t h e S e c r e t a r y t o i s s u e a c h a r t e r of b u s i n e s s i - n c o r p o r a t i o n t o such t r i b e s t o e n a b l e them t o c o n d u c t b u s i n e s s t h r o u g h t h i s modern d e v i c e , which c h a r t e r c a n n o t be revoked o r s u r r e n d e r e d e x c e p t by Act of Congress. This corporation, a l though composed of t h e same members a s t h e p o l i t i c a l body, i s t o be a s e p a r a t e e n t i t y , and t h u s more c a p a b l e of o b t a i n i n g c r e d i t and o t h e r w i s e e x p e d i t i n g t h e b u s i n e s s of t h e T r i b e No. M-36515, 65 I n t . Dec. 483 (November 2 0 , 1 9 5 8 ) . . . ." See g e n e r a l l y , Comment, T r i b a l Self-Government and t h e I n d i a n R e o r g a n i z a t i o n Act of 1934, 70 Mich.L.Rev. 955 ( 1 9 7 2 ) . The governmental e n t i t y of t h e F o r t Belknap T r i b e r e t a i n s i t s s o v e r e i g n immunity t o t h e e x t e n t n o t e x p r e s s l y waived o r r e s t r i c t e d by Congress. The c o r p o r a t i o n , however, i s empowered: "To s u e and t o be sued i n c o u r t s of competent j u r i s d i c t i o n w i t h i n t h e United S t a t e s ; b u t t h e g r a n t o r e x e r c i s e o f such power t o s u e and t o be sued s h a l l n o t be deemed a c o n s e n t by t h e Community o r by t h e United S t a t e s t o t h e l e v y of any judgment, l i e n o r a t t a c h m e n t upon t h e p r o p e r t y of t h e Community o t h e r t h a n income o r c h a t t e l s s p e c i a l l y pledged o r a s s i g n e d . " Corp o r a t e C h a r t e r of t h e F o r t Belknap I n d i a n Community of t h e F o r t Belknap I n d i a n R e s e r v a t i o n , r a t i f i e d August 25, 1937. While r e c o g n i z i n g t h e g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s of I n d i a n immunity, a p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h e F o r t Belknap T r i b e no l o n g e r enjoys the privilege. The argument i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by e v i d e n c e of a c t u a l c o r p o r a t e a c t i v i t y b u t r a t h e r a s p e c u l a t i v e l e g a l theory. A p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t by a d o p t i n g a b u s i n e s s c o r p o r a t i o n p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 17 t h e governmental e n t i t y merged w i t h t h e c o r p o r a t e e n t i t y , t h e r e b y c o m p l e t e l y waiving t h e t r i b e ' s immunity . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o n s i d e r e d a p p e l l a n t ' s merger t h e o r y and r e j e c t e d i t c o n c l u d i n g : "Here, t h e showing i s t h a t t h e Community A c t i o n program was developed through t h e N a t i v e American Programs a s a r e s u l t of t h e s p e c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p which e x i s t s between t h e f e d e r a l government and I n d i a n s and I n d i a n t r i b e s f o r t h e p u r p o s e of adv a n c i n g t h e w e l f a r e of t h e I n d i a n s . Agreed t h a t a p r i n c i p a l p u r p o s e was t o improve t h e economic and s o c i a l c o n d i t i o n s of t h e Community, t h a t purp o s e i s a p r o p e r governmental f u n c t i o n . Conceiva b l y , c e r t a i n b u s i n e s s p r o j e c t s might r e s u l t d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y from t h e program, and i f s u c h p r o j e c t s s h o u l d be u n d e r t a k e n by t h e Communi t y , t h e c o r p o r a t e e n t i t y m i g h t w e l l be i n v o l v e d . N commercial o r b u s i n e s s a c t i v i t y i s i n v o l v e d o here. " The judgment must be a f f i r m e d . F i r s t , a p p e l l a n t has f a i l e d t o c a r r y h e r burden of proof r e g a r d i n g t h e c l a i m t h a t t h e Community C o u n c i l was a c t i n g under c o l o r of i t s c o r p o r a t e charter. The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no a f f i r m a t i v e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t such a c o n t e n t i o n . Second, a p p e l l a n t ' s merger t h e o r y i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by any a u t h o r i t y reviewed by t h i s C o u r t and, i n f a c t , c o n f l i c t s with current Indian l a w principles. The t h e o r y r e s t s upon t h e u n t e n a b l e f o u n d a t i o n of an i m p l i e d w a i v e r of immunity. I n S a n t a C l a r a Pueblo v . M a r t i n e z ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 436 U.S. 56 L.Ed.2d 106, 98 S.Ct. 49, 1670, t h e Supreme C o u r t d e c i d e d whether a f e d e r a l c o u r t may p a s s on t h e v a l i d i t y of a t r i b a l o r d i n a n c e denying membership t o t h e c h i l d r e n of f e m a l e members who m a r r i e d o u t s i d e t h e t r i b e . b r o u g h t under T i t l e (ICRA), 25 U.S.C., I L The a c t i o n w a s of t h e I n d i a n C i v i l R i g h t s Act of 1968 8 5 1301-1303. I n h o l d i n g t h e Act d o e s n ' t impliedly a u t h o r i z e such a c t i o n s , t h e c o u r t discussed t h e n a t u r e of t r i b a l immunity: " I n d i a n t r i b e s have l o n g been r e c o g n i z e d a s poss e s s i n g t h e common-law immunity from s u i t t r a d i t i o n a l l y e n j o y e d by s o v e r e i g n powers. Turner v . United S t a t e s , 248 U.S. 354, 358 ( 1 9 1 9 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v. United S t a t e s F i d e l i t y & Guaranty Co., 309 U.S. 506, 512-513 ( 1 9 4 0 ) ; P u y a l l u p T r i b e v. Washington Dept. o f Game, 433 U.S. 165, 172-173 ( 1 9 7 7 ) . T h i s a s p e c t of t r i b a l s o v e r e i g n t y , l i k e a l l o t h e r s , i s s u b j e c t t o t h e s u p e r i o r and p l e n a r y c o n t r o l of Congress. But ' w i t h o u t c o n g r e s s i o n a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n , ' t h e ' I n d i a n N a t i o n s a r e exempt from s u i t . ' United S t a t e s v. U n i t e d S t a t e s F i d e l i t y & Guaranty Co., s u p r a , a t 512. " I t - s e t t l e d -h a t a waiver of s o v e r e i g n immunity - is t - ' c a n n o t b e i m p l i e d --- b e u n e q u i v o c a l l y exb u t must - U n i t e d S t a t e s v. T e s t a n , 4 2 4 U.S. 392, 399 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , q u o t i n g , United S t a t e s v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 ( 1 9 6 9 ) . " (Emphasis added.) S a n t a C l a r a Pueblo, 436 U.S. a t 58. oressed.' , . I n summary, w e f i n d t h e Community C o u n c i l a c t e d s o l e l y i n i t s governmental c a p a c i t y i n t h e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e a p p e l l a n t and concur w i t h t h e r e j e c t i o n of t h e n o t i o n t h a t t r i b a l r a t i f i c a t i o n of a s e c t i o n 17 c o r p o r a t e c h a r t e r subsumes, and t h e r e b y merges, a n e x i s t e n t s e c t i o n 1 6 t r i b a l sovereign. An i m p l i e d w a i v e r i s i m p e r m i s s i b l e ; t h e w a i v e r must be e x p r e s s . The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . W concur: e Chief J u s t i c

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.