Yes, the court can review the case. The judges said that kicking someone out of their home, culture, and community forever is a very severe punishment, similar to being imprisoned. The law that gives tribal members rights (the Indian Civil Rights Act) allows people to go to a federal court if they are being 'detained' by the tribe. The court decided that 'permanent banishment' is so serious it counts as a form of detention. The tribe can't just call a serious punishment a 'membership issue' to avoid a federal court checking if it was done fairly.

No, the court should stay out of this. This judge argued that being banished from the reservation doesn't take away the members' rights as U.S. citizens; they are still free to live anywhere else in the United States. He believed that a tribe has the sovereign right to decide who its members are, and federal courts shouldn't interfere with that power, even if the decision seems harsh. Stepping in would weaken the tribe's ability to govern itself.

Yes, kicking someone out of a tribe forever is taking away their freedom in a big way. It's not just about where they can live - it's taking away their whole identity and community. Even though tribes can usually decide who is a member, this punishment is so serious that U.S. courts should be able to check if it was done fairly. The kicked-out members should get a chance to explain their side of the story in court.

No, kicking someone out of a tribe isn't taking away the kind of freedom that U.S. courts should get involved with. The kicked-out members can still live anywhere else in the U.S. and have all their rights as U.S. citizens. Tribes should be able to decide who is a member without U.S. courts interfering. Letting courts get involved in this could make it harder for tribes to govern themselves, which is not what the law intended.

Yes. Permanent banishment constitutes a severe restraint on liberty sufficient to be considered 'detention' for the purposes of habeas corpus review under the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA). The court determined that the banishment orders were punitive criminal sanctions, not merely civil membership determinations, as evidenced by the language of 'treason' and 'conviction'. While the ICRA's habeas provision (§ 1303) is coextensive with other habeas statutes and requires a 'severe restraint on liberty,' permanent banishment meets this standard. Banishment is a peremptory deprivation of tribal membership and cultural affiliation, analogous to the severe consequences of denaturalization recognized in cases like Trop v. Dulles. The constant threat of forcible removal and loss of cultural identity represents a severe restraint on liberty to which other tribal members are not subject. Therefore, federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction to review the legality of the tribe's action.

No. The threat of banishment from the Tonawanda Band is not a 'detention' because it does not constitute a severe restraint on any liberty that the writ of habeas corpus protects. The proper inquiry is whether petitioners suffer an impairment of liberties enjoyed by the American public at large, not just those unique to tribal members. Once banished, petitioners are free to live and travel anywhere in the United States like any other citizen. Unlike alien deportation, banishment from a reservation does not deprive individuals of the rights and liberties enjoyed by the general U.S. population. Furthermore, allowing habeas review for banishment constitutes a gross interference with a tribe's sovereign power to define its own membership, undermining the ICRA's goal of furthering Indian self-government.

Yes, the imposition of permanent banishment by a tribal council constitutes a severe restraint on liberty that is reviewable under the habeas corpus provision of the Indian Civil Rights Act. The court has jurisdiction to review the legality of tribal banishment orders under 25 U.S.C. § 1303 because such orders impose severe restraints on liberty, even without physical custody. Banishment is a severe punishment that destroys the individual's political existence and cultural identity. The threat of removal from tribal land and permanent loss of tribal affiliation are sufficient restraints to satisfy the custody requirement for habeas corpus. While tribes retain sovereign authority over membership, Congress intended § 1303 to provide a means to challenge punitive measures that severely restrain liberty. The petitions should be considered on the merits, though the tribe itself is not a proper respondent.

No, the banishment orders do not constitute a severe restraint on liberty sufficient to support habeas corpus jurisdiction. The proper inquiry is whether petitioners will suffer impairment of liberties enjoyed by the American public at large, not just tribal members. Once banished, petitioners will retain their U.S. citizenship and constitutional rights. Banishment from tribal lands does not restrict liberties in the same way as deportation or denationalization. The tribe retains sovereign power to determine its membership, and federal courts should not intrude on this delicate matter. Allowing habeas review of banishment would interfere with tribal sovereignty and self-government in a way not intended by Congress in enacting the Indian Civil Rights Act.

Poodry v. Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot