Lexplug logoLexplug

Morton v. Mancari

Supreme Court of United States
417 U.S. 535 (1974)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Federal employment preferences for qualified members of federally recognized Native American tribes are a political classification, not a racial one, and do not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment if they are rationally related to Congress's unique trust obligation to Native Americans.


Facts:

  • The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 directed the Secretary of the Interior to establish an employment preference for qualified Native Americans for positions within the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
  • This preference was enacted to foster Native American self-government and increase their participation in the BIA, the agency managing their affairs.
  • In June 1972, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs issued a directive expanding this long-standing policy to apply not only to initial hiring but also to promotions within the BIA.
  • Mancari and other non-Native American employees of the BIA in Albuquerque, New Mexico, were subject to this new promotion policy.
  • These non-Native American employees believed the policy put them at a distinct disadvantage when competing for promotions and training programs against Native American colleagues.

Procedural Posture:

  • Mancari and other non-Native American employees of the BIA filed a class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico against the Secretary of the Interior, Morton.
  • The suit sought to enjoin the enforcement of the Indian preference policy, claiming it was repealed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 and violated the Fifth Amendment.
  • A three-judge District Court was convened to hear the case.
  • Amerind, a nonprofit representing Native American BIA employees, intervened in the case to defend the preference.
  • The District Court ruled in favor of Mancari, holding that the 1972 Act implicitly repealed the Indian preference statutes, and permanently enjoined the BIA from implementing the policy.
  • Morton, the appellant, appealed the District Court's decision directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Locked

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 the employment preference for qualified Native Americans within the Bureau of Indian Affairs, mandated by the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, constitute illegal racial discrimination under the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 or the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?


Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Blackmun

No, the employment preference for qualified Native Americans within the Bureau of Indian Affairs does not constitute illegal racial discrimination. First, the preference was not implicitly repealed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972. Repeals by implication are disfavored, and there is no affirmative evidence that Congress intended to nullify this specific, long-standing statute with a general anti-discrimination law. In fact, Congress passed new, similar Indian preference laws shortly after the 1972 Act, indicating its continued support for such policies. Second, the preference does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because it is not a racial preference. Rather, it is a political classification based on membership in quasi-sovereign tribal entities, which stems from the unique legal relationship between the U.S. government and Native American tribes. The preference is rationally tied to the fulfillment of Congress's unique trust obligation to promote tribal self-government and is therefore constitutional.



Analysis:

This landmark decision establishes that federal legislation favoring members of federally recognized tribes is based on a political, rather than racial, classification. This 'political classification doctrine' insulates a wide range of federal Indian laws from equal protection challenges, solidifying the unique legal and political status of tribes within the U.S. constitutional system. The ruling affirmed Congress's plenary power to legislate on behalf of Native American tribes to fulfill its historical trust responsibilities. Consequently, Morton v. Mancari serves as a crucial precedent protecting laws and programs designed to promote tribal sovereignty and self-determination.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Morton v. Mancari (1974) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Morton v. Mancari