Opinion ID: 777929
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dependent Domestic Sovereigns

Text: 9 First, the rule that a tribe is not a citizen of any state is supported by the status of Indian tribes as dependent domestic sovereigns. Tribes are, foremost, sovereign nations. They retain[ ] their original natural rights as aboriginal entit[ies] antedating the federal [and state] government[s]. Romanella, 114 F.3d at 16. Second, Indian tribes are domestic dependent nations. Okla. Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe, 498 U.S. 505, 509, 111 S.Ct. 905, 112 L.Ed.2d 1112 (1991). There exists a unique relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, and the federal government possesses plenary power over tribes. See, e.g., Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463, 503, 99 S.Ct. 740, 58 L.Ed.2d 740 (1979) (Marshall, J., dissenting) (describing the unique relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian people); United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 323, 98 S.Ct. 1079, 55 L.Ed.2d 303 (1978) (stating that Indian tribes' sovereignty exists only at the sufferance of Congress and is subject to complete defeasance). 10 The status of Indian tribes as sovereign entities, and as federal dependents, contradicts conventional notions of citizenship in general and state citizenship in particular. A citizen is [a] person who ... is a member of a political community, owing allegiance to the community and being entitled to enjoy all its civil rights and protections.... Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed.1999). Tribes fall outside this definition. Rather than belonging to state political communities, they themselves are `distinct, independent political communities.' Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 55, 98 S.Ct. 1670, 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978) (quoting Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, 559, 8 L.Ed. 483 (1832)). Tribes also owe no allegiance to a state. Because Congress possesses plenary power over Indian affairs, South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 U.S. 329, 343, 118 S.Ct. 789, 139 L.Ed.2d 773 (1998), Indian tribes fall under nearly exclusive federal, rather than state, control. Cf. Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation, 447 U.S. 134, 154, 100 S.Ct. 2069, 65 L.Ed.2d 10 (1980) ([I]t must be remembered that tribal sovereignty is dependent on, and subordinate to, only the Federal Government, not the States). Moreover, tribal sovereignty and federal plenary power over Indian affairs, taken together, sharply circumscribe the power of the states to impose citizen-like responsibilities on Indian tribes. See Canby, supra, at 79 (observing that tribal sovereignty has operated to a considerable degree as a shield against intrusions of state law into Indian country); Boyer v. Shoshone-Bannock Indian Tribes, 92 Idaho 257, 441 P.2d 167, 170 (1968) (summarizing traditional view that state law has no force and effect, except as granted by federal law, within the territory of an Indian tribe in matters affecting Indians). Thus, for instance, states possess limited power to assert jurisdiction on Indian land and to tax and regulate Indian affairs. 3 11 Furthermore, domestic sovereigns are not citizens of states for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. The states — themselves domestic sovereigns — cannot sue or be sued in diversity, Romanella, 114 F.3d at 16, because they are not citizens of any state. Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 717, 93 S.Ct. 1785, 36 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973). The rule that American Vantage urges would result in disharmony in the treatment of domestic sovereigns. 4