John Doe v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
159 Idaho 741, 367 P.3d 136 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Tribal sovereign immunity bars state courts from imposing monetary sanctions or awarding attorney fees against a tribe that has intervened in a state court proceeding, as intervention does not constitute the clear and unequivocal waiver of immunity required by law.
Facts:
- A child, born in 2010, was removed from the care of his biological parents due to severe abuse and neglect.
- Because the child was potentially of Native American heritage, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes were notified of the child protection proceedings.
- The child was placed with Jane and John Doe, a non-native couple, and the biological parents' rights were terminated.
- The Does subsequently filed a petition to adopt the child.
- The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes intervened in the adoption proceeding, asserting that the child was an 'Indian child' under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).
- During the proceedings, a dispute arose when the Tribes refused to produce the child's father's 1993 tribal enrollment application, citing sovereign privacy rules.
- The Tribes also opposed a request for depositions of tribal officials regarding the child's eligibility for enrollment.
Procedural Posture:
- Jane and John Doe filed a petition to adopt Child in an Idaho state trial court.
- The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes filed a petition to intervene, which the trial court granted.
- The trial court ordered the Tribes and the Does to share equally in the fees for an independent attorney appointed for the Child.
- Following discovery disputes, the trial court granted the Does' motion to compel discovery and denied the Tribes' request for a protective order.
- The trial court imposed $1,000 in monetary sanctions against the Tribes for discovery violations and later imposed non-monetary sanctions limiting the evidence the Tribes could present.
- The trial court issued a final judgment granting the adoption and subsequently ordered the Tribes to pay $35,000 in attorney fees to the Does as the prevailing party.
- The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Appellant) appealed the discovery rulings, sanctions, and attorney fee awards to the Supreme Court of Idaho.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does tribal sovereign immunity bar a state court from imposing monetary sanctions and awarding attorney fees against a tribe that has intervened in a state child adoption proceeding?
Opinions:
Majority - W. Jones
Yes. Tribal sovereign immunity bars a state court from imposing monetary sanctions and attorney fees against a tribe that intervenes in an adoption proceeding. Sovereign immunity is absolute unless Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has unequivocally waived its immunity. A tribe's intervention in a state court proceeding does not constitute such a clear waiver. The trial court's orders compelling discovery into tribal enrollment matters and enjoining the Tribes from enrolling the child were abuses of discretion because tribal membership is an internal matter within the exclusive authority of the tribe. Consequently, the monetary sanctions for non-compliance with the improper discovery order were also an abuse of discretion. Furthermore, state courts lack inherent or equitable authority to award attorney fees; such awards must be authorized by statute, and no statute authorized the fees awarded against the Tribes here. The fee awards, both for the child's counsel and for the Does as the prevailing party, are therefore barred by the Tribes' sovereign immunity.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the principle that tribal sovereign immunity is robust and cannot be waived implicitly by participation in state court litigation. It clarifies that a tribe can intervene to protect its interests under laws like the ICWA without risking exposure to monetary damages, sanctions, or attorney fee awards. The ruling protects a tribe's ability to engage in state legal systems on matters of critical importance, such as child welfare, without forfeiting its sovereign status. By also striking down the trial court's interference with tribal enrollment decisions, the case reinforces the judiciary's deference to a tribe's exclusive authority over its own membership.
