Title: BLACKWOLF v DIST COURT

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 12167 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1972 I n t h e Matter of: LELAND (LEO) BLACKWOLF, ELMER BRADY, JR., R A Y M O N D SEMINOLE, Petitioners, DISTRICT C O U R T O F THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT of the S t a t e of Montana, i n and f o r the County of Rosebud and the H O N O R A B L E ALFRED B . C O A T E , JUDGE, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING : Counsel of Record: For Petitioners: Barney Reagan argued, Hellena o t a m . Thomas J. Lynaugh argued, & & ! / a ? Montana. William Jensen and Thomas Ashton, Helena, Montana. For Respondents: Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana. David V. Gliko, Assistant Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana. O t i s L. Packwood, Billings, Montana. William F. Meisburger, County Attorney, Forsyth, Montana. Submitted: January 24, 1972 Decided : 2 3 1972 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. This matter i s before the Court a s an o r i g i n a l proceeding. Petitioners, enrolled members of t h e Northern Cheyenne Indian Tribe i n Rosebud County, seek a w r i t of supervisory control, w r i t of review, w r i t of prohibition o r other appropriate r e l i e f from the action of the juvenile court of the sixteenth j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of Rosebud. Petitioners a r e charged in the juvenile court of the s i x - teenth j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t i n three separate actions a s delinquent minors f o r alleged a c t s of del.inyuency which occurred within t h e exterior boundari,es of t h e Northerrt Cheyenne I n d i a n Reservati.on. The charges were preceded by three separate juvenile hearings before the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Court. It is agreed t h a t the Tribal Court has jurisdiction. The Tribal Court, i n turn, "remanded" t h e proceedings t o respondent s t a t e court under t h e authority of t h e "Revised Law and Order Code of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, Chapter I V , Section 4 , Juvenile Delinquency, Paragraph 9 (4)", which authorizes i n pertinent part : "9. Hearing-Judgment : The court may conduct the hearing i n an informal manner and may adjourn the hearing from time t o time. I n the hearing of any juvenile case the general public may be ex- cluded and only such persons admitted a s may have a d i r e c t i n t e r e s t i n the case. I f t h e court s h a l l find t h a t t h e c h i l d is delinquent within the pro- vision of t h i s ordinance, it may, by order duly entered, proceed a s follows : "(1) Place the child on probation for supervision upon such terms a s the court s h a l l determine. "(2) Admit t h e child t o a s u i t a b l e public o r private agency o r i n s t i t u t i o n o r take temporary custody and authorize h i s place- ment i n a s u i t a b l e f o s t e r home. "(3) Order such further care and t r e a t - ment a s t h e court may deem necessary f o r the best i n t e r e s t s of t h e child. " ( 4 ) Order the child delivered i n t o the appropriate juvenile department of the D i s t r i c t Court f o r such disposition a s it may make through use of t h e f a c i l i t i e s and i n s t i t u t i o n s provided by the S t a t e of Montana i n the i n t e r e s t s of t h e child and of t h e Tribe and of the State, provided t h a t , upon t h e assumption of jurisdiction by the Juvenile Court of the J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t by means of t h i s section, t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of the Tribal Court s h a l l end." (Emphasis added). In response t o p e t i t i o n s f i l e d by the county attorney of Rosebud County alleging the juveniles t o be delinquents, the s t a t e juvenile court exercised its j u r i s d i c t i o n by issuance of c i t a t i o n s . A l l petitioners and t h e i r parents were served with process within the exterior boundaries of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation. Petitioners moved t h e respondent juvenile court t o dismiss the Rosebud county attorney's three p e t i t i o n s for lack of j u r i s - diction. O n October 21, 1971, the juvenile court denied the motion. The pertinent conclusions of law i n the order denying t h e motion a r e : "V. That j u r i s d i c t i o n over Indian juveniles f o r t h e i r a c t s within the reservation is exclusively with t h e t r i b e . * * * "VI. * * * The only juvenile j u r i s c i c t i o n a t - tempted t o be exercised by t h i s Court, is t h a t which has been delegated t o the Court by the Tribe. * * *I' Such order is not an appealable order, thus t h i s p e t i t i o n was f i l e d i n t h i s Court a s an o r i g i n a l proceeding seeking an appro- p r i a t e w r i t t o reverse the action of t h e juvenile court. This Court accepted jurisdiction and o r a l arguments were had on January 13, 1972. A t t h i s point we emphasize t h a t a l l matters concerning the exercise of j u r i s d i c t i o n by s t a t e courts over enrolled Indian c i t i z e n s who reside within the e x t e r i o r boundaries of an Indian reservation a r e controlled s o l e l y by federal law, a s t o a c t s o r transactions within t h e e x t e r i o r boundaries of t h e reservation. On t h e day s e t f o r o r a l argument i n t h i s Court, t h e United States government requested a period of ten days i n which t o determine whether o r not an amicus curiae b r i e f on behalf of t h e federa 1 government by the S o l i c i t o r Genera L woixld h e f i l e d . The extension was granted, The time period expired; no b r i e f was f i l e d and no further extension of time was requested. There- fore, t h e cause was submitted t o t h i s Court f o r determination on January 27, 1972. Petitioners contend the juvenile court of the sixteenth j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t is without jurisdiction. Further, t h a t t h e Northern Cheyenne Tribe cannot confer jurisdiction nor can t h e juvenile court accept jurisdiction from t h e Tribe, s i n c e pro- cedural rules and l e g i s l a t i v e action, both a s t o the s t a t e and the Tribe, have not been followed i n order for the s t a t e of Montana t o have concurrent jurisdiction over crimina 1 and c i v i l offenses a r i s i n g i n Indian country. Petitioners point out t h a t t h e Northern Cheyenne Reserva- t i o n does not come within t h e Montana code sections which accepted another t r i b e who had properly applied t o the s t a t e of Montana t o share reservation jurisdiction. Sections 83-801 through 83- 806, R.C.M. 1947. Therefore, petitioners contend, Montana has not and cannot accept any jurisdiction, criminal o r c i v i l , with t h e Northern Cheyenne Tribe under the procedures outlined i n e i t h e r Public Law 280 (Act of August 15, 1953, 67 S t a t . 588-590), o r t h e Federal Indian C i v i l Rights Act of 1968 (Act of April 11, 1968, 82 S t a t . 77, 79, 25 U.S.C. S S 1321-26), since Montana has not acted together with the Northern Cheyenne Tribe i n compliance with the requirements of these a c t s . Petitioners further contend t h a t the cases involved here a r e governed s o l e l y by the procedural rules contained i n T i t l e I V of t h e Federal Indian C i v i l Rights Act and its predecessor Public Law 280. These contentions a r e correct and a r e consistent with t h i s Court's ruling i n Crow Tribe of Indians v. Deernose, Mont . , 487 P.2d 1133, 1136, 28 St. Rep. 754: "It is abundantly c l e a r t h a t s t a t e court juris- diction i n Indian a f f a i r s on reservations does not e x i s t i n t h e absence of an express s t a t u t o r y p r a n t of such jurisdiction by Conpress together with s t r i c t compliance with the provisions of such s t a t u t o r y grant. I l l u s t r a t i v e of t h i s principle is the 1971 case Kennerly v. D i s t r i c t Court, e t c . , of Montana, 400 U.S. 423, 91 S. C t . 480, 27 L.Ed.2d 507." (Emphasis added) In Kennerly v. D i s t r i c t Court, 400 U.S. 423, 91 S.Ct. 480, 27 L ed 2d 507, 511, the United States Supreme Court considered the question of whether a resolution passed by the Blackfeet Tribal Council i n 1967, granting concurrent j u r i s - diction t o t h e s t a t e i n a l l s u i t s where t h e defendant was a member of the Blackfeet Tribe, was s u f f i c i e n t t o confer j u r i s - diction on the s t a t e . I n absence of affirmative l e g i s l a t i v e action by the s t a t e of Montana accepting j u r i s d i c t i o n , t h e United States Supreme Court said: "The u n i l a t e r a l a c t i o n of the Tribal Council was insufficient t o vest Montana with j u r i s d i c t i o n over Indian country under the 1953 Act." Regarding the vesting of j u r i s d i c t i o n under t h e provisions of the 1968 Federal Indian C i v i l Rights Act, t h e United States Supreme Court i n Kennerly s t a t e d t h a t i n absence of a s p e c i a l election c a l l e d by e i t h e r the Tribal Council o r the necessary number of enrolled members of the Tribe, the action by the Tribal Council did not comply with t h e pro-~isiona of the Act. The s t a t e ' s argument a s it concerns t h e withholding o r conferring of s o c i a l benefits due our Indian c i t i z e n s by t h e s t a t e of Montana, is sound and well taken a s a s o c i a l principle. Yet, t h i s argument overlooks the basic f a c t t h a t t h i s Court is t o t a l l y without authority t o implement l e g i s l a t i v e changes a s t o the federal laws t h a t govern. Once t h e Indian c i t i z e n s comply with the mandatory procedures enacted by Congress and approved by t h e United States Supreme Court, Montana can and w i l l j o i n i n t h e solution of these problems. There was c l e a r l y a transfer of j u r i s d i c t i o n i n these cases by the Indian Tribal Court and an assumption of t h a t j u r i s - diction by t h e s t a t e court. The s t a t e ' s argument which attempts t o remove these cases from federal control on the f a c t s , is without merit. The order of the juvenile court is reversed and t h e t h r e e causes involved dismissed. Associate J u s t i c e Chief Justice l * + c u ~ssociaYE? Justices.