Document: 417 U.S. 535 94 S.Ct. 2474 41 L.Ed.2d 290 Rogers C. B. MORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Appellants,v.C. R. MANCARI al. AMERIND, Appellant, v. Nos. 73—362, 73—364. Argued April 24, 1974. Decided June 17, Syllabus Appellees, non-Indian employees Bureau Indian Affairs (BIA), brought this class action claiming that employment preference for qualified Indians in BIA provided by Reorganization Act 1934 contravened anti-discrimination provisions Equal Employment Opportunities 1972, and deprived them property rights without due process law violation Fifth Amendment. A three-judge District Court held was implicitly repealed § 11 1972 proscribing racial discrimination most federal employment, enjoined appellant officials from implementing any policy BIA. Held: 1. Congress did not intend to repeal preference, erred holding it Act. Pp. 545—551. (a) Since extending general machinery no way modified thus reaffirmed preferences accorded §§ 701(b) 703(i) Title VII Civil Rights 1964 tribes or private industries located on near reservations, would be anomalous conclude intended eliminate longstanding as being racially discriminatory. 547—548. (b) In view fact shortly after passed enacted new laws part Education Amendments giving Government programs training teachers children, is improbable same condemned 548—548. (c) The extension largely just a codification prior Executive Orders, with respect which had long been treated exceptions, there reason presume affirmatively erase such preferences. P. 549. (d) This prototypical case where an adjudication implication appropriate, since longstanding, important component Government's program, whereas anti- provisions, aimed at alleviating minority are designed deal entirely different problem. two statutes, irreconcilable, capable co-existence, specific statute applying situation, controlled nullified 549—551. 2. does constitute invidious Due Process Clause Amendment but reasonable rationally further self-government. 551—555. If laws, were derived historical relationships explicitly help only Indians, deemed discrimination, 25 U.S.C. its entirety effectively erased commitment jeopardized. 553—554. 'racial discrimination' even 'racial' rather criterion cause self-government make more responsive needs constituent groups. As special treatment can tied fulfillment Congress' unique obligation toward legislative judgments will disturbed. 554—555. 359 F.Supp. 585, reversed remanded. Harry Sachse, New Orleans, La., appellants No. 73 362. Harris D. Sherman, Denver, Colo., 364. Gene E. Franchini, Albuquerque, N.M., appellees. Mr. Justice BLACKMUN delivered opinion Court. 1 1934, also known Wheeler-Howard Act, 48 Stat. 984, 461 seq., accords (BIA Bureau). BAI employees, challenged contrary Opportunity 86 103, 42 2000e seq. (1970 ed., Supp. II), violative Federal concluded under impliedly 585 (NM 1973). We noted probable jurisdiction order examine statutory constitutional validity preference. 414 1142, 893, 39 99 (1974); 415 946, 1467, 562 (1974). 2 * Section 12 986, 472, provides: 3 'The Interior directed establish standards health, age, character, experience, knowledge, ability who may appointed, regard civil-service various positions maintained, now hereafter, Office,1 administration functions services affecting tribe. Such shall hereafter have appointment vacancies positions.'2 4 pursuant provision, Commissioner Affairs, approval issued directive (Personnel Management Letter 72 12) (App. 52) stating BIA's grant only, before, initial hiring stage, situation non-Indian, both already employed BIA, competing promotion within Bureau.3 record indicates implemented immediately. 5 Shortly thereafter, appellees, Albuquerque,4 instituted action, behalf themselves other similarly situated, United States Mexico, 'so-called 'Indian Preference Statutes," App. 15, law, Amendment.5 Named defendants Directors Albuquerque Navajo Area Offices. Appellees claimed implementation enforcement 'placed continue place (appellees) distinct disadvantage all has subject deny equal opportunity.' 16. 6 court convened 28 2282 because complaint sought enjoin, unconstitutional, statute. Appellant Amerind, nonprofit organization representing moved intervene support preference; motion granted Amerind thereafter participated stages litigation. 7 After short trial focusing primarily how policy, fact, implemented, Pub.L. 92—261, 111, 2000e—16(a) basis race.6 Having found unnecessary pass constitutionality. permanently 'from hire, promote, reassign person another solely Indian.' execution judgment stayed Marshall August 16, 1973, pending disposition appeal. II 8 according some service dates least far back 1834.7 time, repeatedly type here issue.8 purpose these preferences, variously expressed history, give greater participation their own self-government;9 trust tribes;10 reduce negative effect having non-Indians administer matters affect tribal life.11 9 directly issue sweeping 1934. overriding particular whereby able assume degree self-government, politically economically.12 seeking modify then-existing non-Indian-staffed plenary control, practical purposes, over lives destinies federally recognized tribes. Initial congressional proposals diminished substantially role turning chartered self-governing communities many normally performed Bureau.13 Committee sentiment, however, ran against radical change BIA.14 solution ultimately adopted strengthen government while continuing active understanding interests people created serve. 10 One primary means fostered made increase operations.15 achieve end, kind exemption otherwise prevailing civil requirements necessary.16 Congressman Howard, House sponsor, need preference: civic powers, they opportunity enter very bureau manages affairs. Theoretically, right qualify service. actual practice adequate program compete examinations, especially technical higher positions; if training, existing terms multitudes white applicants. . reservations actually local than comparable municipal county services, dealing purely problems. It should possible requisite vocational professional necessity applicants positions. bill permits do so.' 78 Cong.Rec. 11729 (1934). well aware proposed result disadvantages non-Indians.17 Not displacement unavoidable room determined gradual replacement desirable feature entire self-government.18 fair success. percentage rose 34% 57% 1972. former downward trend, see n. supra, due, clearly, presence Commissioner's promotions bring into responsibility and, regard, appears logical intent. See Freeman Morton, 162 U.S.App.D.C. 358, 499 F.2d 494 (1974), 5, supra. III 13 background we encounter first present case: whether 1964, 253, major piece legislation prohibiting 'race, color, religion, sex, national origin.' 2000e—2(a). Significantly, exempted coverage preferential reservations. 2000e(b) 2000e-2(i).19 reveals clear recognition, framework VII, legal status reservation-based activities. Senate Senator Humphrey, stated floor explanation: 14 'Thus consistent encouraging position Indians.' 110 12723 (1964).20 15 specifically outlaw Government.21 Yet mechanism enforcing Orders forbidding proved ineffective part.22 remedy this, Congress, amended proscribed areas employment. 6, general, said substantive embraced carried applied Government. Report: 16 'To correct entrenched service, necessary insure effective application uniform, strongly enforced policies. permit industry labor organizations judges conduct area discrimination. There why agencies similarly. .' H.R.Rep. 92—238, H.R. 1746, pp. 24—25 (1971). 17 Nowhere history mention 18 assert, held, necessarily, albeit sub silentio, provision called one group, non-Indians: 19 'When conflict case, present, recent apply conflicting Preferences years earlier repealed.' Brief 7. 20 disagree. For several reasons repealed. 21 First: above-mentioned affirmative excluding business enterprise reservation. 2000e—2(i). 19, These exemptions indicate recognition providing concerning 'on near' reservation reveal sentiment narrow context reservation-related proscribed. built still effect. discriminatory, time reaffirming employers provide Appellees' assertion retaining attributes irrationality arbitrariness, attribution share. 22 Second: Three months amendments, laws. 235, 887c(a) (d), 1119a II). require given children. improbable, say least, approved additional similar was, condemning total absence manifestation supportive intent, loathe imply result. 23 Third: years, exceptions discrimination.23 large merely inadequate machinery. certainly indication proscription broader previously existed. By codifying them, co-existed broad Orders. 24 Fourth: head-on 'cardinal rule repeals favored.' Posadas National City Bank, 296 497, 503, 56 349, 352, 80 L.Ed. 351 (1936); Wood States, Pet. 342—343, 363, 987 (1842); Universal Interpretive Shuttle Corp. Washington Metropolitan Transit Comm'n, 393 186, 193, 89 354, 334 (1968). They read silence effectuating implication. nothing intent Indeed, explained above, ample independent evidence contrary. appropriate. program. obviously indeed, opposite Any perceived apparent real. 26 showing intention repeal, permissible justification when later statutes irreconcilable. Georgia Pennsylvania Co., 324 439, 456 457, 65 716, 725—726, 1051 (1945). Clearly, here. furthering members governed group readily co-exist race. conclusion reached formalistic reasoning ignores purposes relationship between Indians. 27 Furthermore, situation. hand, application. Where otherwise, one, regardless priority enactment. See, e.g., Bulova Watch Co. 365 753, 758, 81 864, (1961); Rodgers 185 83, 87—89, 582, 583—584, 46 816 (1902). courts liberty pick choose among enactments, duty courts, absent clearly contrary, each effective. acts upon subject, .. legislature 'must manifest." Borden 308 188, 198, 60 182, 84 181 (1939). light factors indicating simply cannot consciously abandoned amendments. 29 therefore hold ruling IV 30 must decide whether, appellees contend, constitutes Bolling Sharpe, 347 74 693, 98 884 (1954). Court, pretermitting issue, said: '(W)e could fail grounds.' F.Supp., 591. 31 Resolution instant turns power based treaties assumption 'guardian-ward' status, legislate problems drawn Constitution itself. Article I, 8, cl. 3, provides 'regulate Commerce Tribes,' thus, extent, singles out proper separate legislation. II, 2, gives President power, advice consent Senate, treaties. often source described origin nature relationship: 32 'In exercise war treaty overcame took possession lands, sometimes force, leaving uneducated, helpless dependent people, needing protection selfishness others improvidence. Of assumed furnishing protection, authority required peform prepare take independent, modern body politic. Board County Comm'rs Seber, 318 705, 715, 63 920, 926, 87 1094 (1943). 33 Kagama, 118 375, 383—384, 1109, 1113—1114, 228 (1886). 34 Literally every single constituency living Code (25 U.S.C.) solemn Simmons Eagle Seelatsee, 244 808, 814 (ED Wash.1965), aff'd, 384 209, 1459, 480 (1966). 35 determined. discussed control destinies. overly paternalistic approach exploitative destructive interests. united belief institutional changes required. An issue. 36 Contrary characterization discrimination.' preference.24 Rather, reasonably governing agency. requirement Senator, elected, 'an Inhabitant State he chosen,' Art. member city council reside council. enable draw heavily staffing projects, which, either indirectly, applied, discrete but, rather, quasi-sovereign entities whose activities fashion. sense favored manner, truly suigeneris.25 applies cover agency activity, consider difficult question presented blanket ememption examinations. Here, related legitimate, nonracially goal. principal characteristic generally forms 37 On numerous occasions upheld treatment. (1943) (federally tax immunity); McClanahan Arizona Tax 411 164, 93 1257, 129 (1973) (same); (1966), aff'g 808 Wash.1965) (statutory definition membership, resulting interest estate); Williams Lee, 358 217, 79 269, 251 (1959) (tribal affairs). Cf. Morton Ruiz, 199, 1055, 270 (1974) (federal welfare benefits reservations). standing, Cherokee Nation Georgia, 1, (1831); Worcester 515, 483 (1832), sources diverse. Dept. Law (1958); Comment, Battle Self-Determination, 58 Calif.L.Rev. 445 (1970). classification violates process. 38 cases remanded proceedings opinion. so ordered. 40 Judgment Health Service transferred 1954 Department Health, Welfare. Aug. 1954, 68 674, 2001. Presumably, despite transfer, reference Office' Service. CFR 213.3116(b)(8). narrowly statutes. 44, 45, 46, 47, 274. replaced 12. Although litigation, Court's decision, invalidated. stated: announced today (June 26, 1972) Bureau's extend filling original appointment, reinstatement promotions. Federation Employees Consultation NFFE Department. I jointly stress careful attention protecting employees. follows: candidates meet established qualification available vacancy. Indian, immediately, incorporated Promotion Program. Revised Manual releases promptly review comment. You immediate steps notify unions policy.' 52—53. state none 8. 'teachers programmers, computer work.' 587 authorizes decided before us. express Mescalero Apache Tribe Hickel, 432 956 (CA10 1970), cert. denied, 401 981, 91 1195, 333 (1971) (preference inapplicable reduction force). reads: 'All personnel actions (except aliens outside limits States) military departments defined section 102 executive (other Generl Accounting Office) 105 (including paid nonappropriated funds), Postal Rate Commission, those units Columbia competitive judicial branches Library free race, 30, 1834, 9, 737, 45: '(I)n appointments interpreters persons benefit descent, found, properly duties.' May 1882, 88, July 4, 1884, 97, (employment clerical, mechanical, about agencies); 1894, 10, 313, 44 herders, teamsters, laborers, 'and practicable employments' service); 7, 1897, 274 matrons, farmers, industrial schools); 25, 1910, 23, 861, 47 (general products industry). Wheeler, cosponsor 'We setting up prevents managing property. anything else belongs them. What what teach manage funds property, worked poorly concerned ..' Hearings S. 2755 3645 73d Cong., 2d Sess., pt. p. 256 letter, contained Report F. Roosevelt Howard states: should, delay, fundamental political opportunities education economic assistance attain wholesome American life. honor powerful nation us our protection.' H.R.Rep.No.1804, 'If exposed danger, residence unprincipled men.' H.R.Rep.No.474, 23d 1st (1834) (letter dated Feb. Commissioners War). John Collier, Affairs: '(T)his prevent absorption communities, unwilling unable world measures affairs.' Hearing 7902, Readjustment 1—7 (1934) (hereafter Hearings). Mescalaro Jones, 145, 152—153, 1267, 1272—1273, 114 (1973). 491—497. '(Section integrate connected his anxious promote self-determination Indian' (footnote omitted). F.2d, 960 admits (sic) 'Thirty-four ago, 1900, number regular Service, proportion positions, today. generalized consequent exclusion jobs.' (memorandum submitted Collier Committees Affairs). Carter, opponent bill, placed Congressional Record following observation hearings: blind ourselves unquestionably replace know fast, ought go indeed.' 11737 'It running gauntlet competition whites progress ambition enormously strengthened soon adopt principle gradually become, name, predomiantly hands educated competent Id., 11731 (remarks Cong. Howard). excludes Tribe' Act's 'employer.' 'Nothing subchapter publicly individual reservation.' Mundt supported allow 'to operation instituted.' 13702 (1964). contain proviso, somewhat precatory language: 'That sex 254. statement re-enacted 7151, 523 (1963), proviso repealed, id., 662. 'This disproportionatte distribution minorities women throughout bureaucracy level policy-making supervisory government's failure pursue opportunity. 'A critical defect That impeded advanced goal elimination H.R.Rep.No.92—238, 23—24 Exec.Order 7423, 1936, Fed.Reg. 885—886, 189 (1936—1938 Comp.). When Eisenhower Order race Exce. 10577, 4.2, Nov. 22, 7521, 218 (1957—1958 Comp.), left standing containing 301. 213.3112(a)(7), for: filled one-fourth blood.' 213.3116(b)(8) (Indian Services). towards consisting 'Indians'; instead, 'federally recognized' operates exclude individuals classified 'Indians.' sense, nature. eligibility criteria appear BIAM 335, 3.1: '1. Policy—An Bureau. To eligible promotion, blood Federally-recognized promotional consideration met vacancy, accordance Secretary, approving selection non-Indians, considers best restrict management fill methods through promotion. Positions transfers, reassignment, reinstatement, appointment.' 92. Wheeler States.'

Category: 1