Opinion ID: 2621228
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Order to enact a resolution

Text: The district court ordered the Tribal Council to enact a resolution to provide a safe environment for the water commissioners and allow access across reservation land. The State Engineer characterizes this provision as an order to provide a Tribal police escort for the water commissioners. The actual language of the order, however, does not mention tribal police. If the district court intended the words provide a safe environment to mean police escort, then the provision is unenforceable due to vagueness. [16] We view the provision as only requiring the Tribe to enact a resolution to abide by the injunctions of the contempt order. However, as discussed below, we conclude that ordering the Tribe to take legislative action constitutes a clear abuse of discretion by the district court. The Tribe argues that the district court's order requiring the Tribe to enact the resolution violates the Indian Commerce Clause. The Indian Commerce Clause provides: The Congress shall have Power ... [t]o regulate Commerce ... with the Indian Tribes. [17] The United States Supreme Court has explained that, under the Indian Commerce Clause, the States ... have been divested of virtually all authority over Indian commerce and Indian tribes. [18] Indian tribes, as sovereign nations, have power to make their own substantive law in internal matters. [19] The power to regulate an Indian tribe's external affairs lies with Congress. [20] Whether or not a resolution to obey a court order is viewed as an internal tribal matter or as an external matter, a state court lacks the power to compel it. While the district court has jurisdiction over the Tribe to ensure compliance with the Humboldt Decree, [21] this jurisdiction does not extend to compelling legislative action by the Tribal Council. The district court enjoined the Tribe from interfering with the water commissioners' access to the water diversions. The Tribe must abide by this injunction regardless of any Tribal resolution. The order to enact a resolution to provide a safe environment and allow the water commissioners access was superfluous and exceeded the district court's jurisdiction. Therefore, requiring the Tribe to take legislative action constituted an abuse of discretion by the district court. The State Engineer argues, however, that the Tribe agreed to enact this resolution. Even assuming such an agreement could be valid, our review of the record indicates that McDade only offered to present such a measure for the Tribal Council's vote. This offer did not vest the district court with jurisdiction to order the Tribal Council to vote in favor of the measure. Accordingly, we reverse that part of the district court's order that requires the Tribal Council to enact a resolution, as an abuse of discretion. As noted, however, the district court may, on remand, enter orders imposing direct injunctive relief in aid of the Humboldt Decree.