Court Opinion

ID: 9537026
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:11:34.225593+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:46.779031
License: Public Domain

RABINOWITZ, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with Part 11(A) of the court’s opinion that the property leased by KIC is not exempt from the Ketchikan ad valorem taxes under 25 U.S.C. § 465, and with Part 11(C), that the property is not exempt from taxation as a federal instrumentality. I join also in the result reached in Part 11(B), that KIC is not immune from local taxation as a sovereign entity, although I would ground this holding on the conclusion that KIC is not an Indian tribe and enjoys no sovereign immunity.
A Native entity asserting sovereign immunity shoulders the burden of proving it is a tribe. See Mashpee Tribe v. New Seabury Corp., 592 F.2d 575, 586-87 n. 6, 589 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 866, 100 S.Ct. 138, 62 L.Ed.2d 90 (1979). Admittedly, the legal principles of tribal status are a subject of great uncertainty. See Felix S. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law *10243-15 (1982 ed.); W.C. Canby, American Indian Law 3-6 (1981). In the absence of federal recognition1 I would anticipate that a colorable claim of tribal sovereignty might prove exceedingly difficult to adjudicate. Cf. Atkinson v. Haldane, 569 P.2d 151, 162-63 (Alaska 1977) (federal government had recognized Metlakatla Indian Community as an Indian tribe). The instant case, however, does not present such a colorable claim.
Reviewing the criteria used in various circumstances for determining whether a Native group is to be considered a tribe, I think the KIC falls short of satisfying any extant definition. Tribal status may be established by explicit federal recognition. The state courts must respect federal determinations in this area, and recognized entities will be accorded sovereign immunity. Atkinson, 569 P.2d at 162-63. While the KIC has not been accorded federal recognition, this does not end all inquiry under federal standards. Bottomly v. Passamaquoddy Tribe, 599 F.2d 1061, 1064-65 (1st Cir.1979); Maine v. Dana, 404 A.2d 551, 553-54 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1098, 100 S.Ct. 1064, 62 L.Ed.2d 785 (1980). It is still necessary to determine whether the KIC is the type of community which would be recognized by the federal government. Cf. Mashpee Tribe, 592 F.2d at 581.
In 1978, the Department of the Interior published final regulations entitled “Procedures for Establishing that an American Indian Group Exists as an Indian Tribe.” See 25 C.F.R. Part 83, 47 Fed.Reg. 13326 et seq. (March 30, 1982).2 25 C.F.R. § 83.7 sets forth detailed prerequisites for federal recognition of a Native American organization as an Indian tribe. Among these are:
(b) Evidence that a substantial portion of the petitioning group inhabits a specific area or lives in a community viewed as American Indian and distinct from other populations in the area, and that its members are descendants of an Indian tribe which historically inhabited a specific area.3
(c) A statement of facts which establishes that the petitioner has maintained tribal political influence or other authority over its members as an autonomous entity throughout history until the present.
I think it evident that the KIC falls short of satisfying the requirements set forth in *1025the federal guidelines. The members of the KIC are not descended from any particular Indian community, but are natives of differing groups who happen to live in Ketchi-kan. They do not inhabit a specific area which could be viewed as American Indian or as distinct from other communities. The federal regulations also require that “the petitioner has been identified from historical times until the present on a substantially continuous basis, as ‘American Indian,’ or ‘aboriginal’ ” 25 C.F.R. § 83.7(a). The KIC was formed pursuant to a 1934 statute.4
Theoretically distinct from arguments centering upon the actions or policy of the federal government, an Indian group may also seek to establish as a matter of historical fact that it has and continues to exist as an independent sovereign entity entitled to immunity.5 In the earliest days of Indian law adjudication, the United States Supreme Court turned to historical analysis in evaluating the rights and powers of Indian nations.6
On the basis of the record before us it could not be said that the KIC has ever functioned as an independent nation. Because there is a total lack of showing by the KIC that it ever possessed the attributes of sovereignty necessary to suggest existence as a “domestic dependent nation,” I would *1026reject any argument based upon historical fact that this court is bound to afford the KIC sovereign immunity. Because of my conclusion in this regard I can agree to the result obtained in Part 11(B) of the majority opinion, although I do not join in the court’s application of federal precedent.
The approach taken by the court in Part 11(B) in hypothesizing the existence of a KIC “tribe” attempts to apply the “infringement” test of Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 220, 79 S.Ct. 269, 270, 3 L.Ed.2d 251, 254 (1959), in a setting too divorced from reality to permit meaningful application. The Williams test, as explained in McClanahan v. Tax Commission of Arizona, 411 U.S. 164, 179, 93 S.Ct. 1257, 1266, 36 L.Ed.2d 129, 140 (1973), “was designed to resolve [the] conflict [between State and tribal jurisdiction] by providing that the State could protect its interest up to the point where tribal self-government would be affected.” The problem here is that, as far as the record shows, the KIC does not operate as a government. Thus, I view it as an unproductive undertaking, and one which necessarily distorts the import of federal law, to attempt to determine whether the services provided at the community center are to be considered part of KIC’s governmental function.

. In its petition for rehearing the KIC asserts that “the United States specifically recognizes KIC as a tribal entity” by virtue of 47 Fed.Reg. 53130-35 (November 24, 1982). The cited notice by the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, expressly includes the KIC among “additional entities in Alaska which are not historical tribes.” Id. at 53133-34. Thus, it appears that the KIC has not been recognized by the federal government as an Indian Tribe.

. 25 C.F.R. Part 83, originally published in 1978 as 25 C.F.R. Part 54, was redesignated Part 83 in 1982 without substantive revision. See 47 Fed.Reg. 13327 (March 30, 1982). It is not clear whether the KIC is eligible to seek recognition under these regulations. The 1978 Supplementary Information to the Final Rule stated: “Groups in Alaska are entitled to petition on the same basis as groups in the lower 48 states.” 43 Fed.Reg. 39361 (September 5, 1978). 25 C.F.R. § 83.3(b), however, delimits the scope of the regulations as follows:
This part does not apply to Indian tribes, organized bands ... or communities which are already recognized as such and are receiving services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
As of this writing it is doubtful that the KIC has been “recognized” as a tribe, band, or community. On November 24, 1982, the Bureau of Indian Affairs included the KIC in its notice of “Alaska Native Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs.” 47 Fed.Reg. 53133 (November 24, 1982). This listing, however, expressly avoided characterizing Alaskan Native groups as tribes or Indian communities. Instead, the notice stated that “unique circumstances have made eligible additional entities in Alaska which are not historical tribes.” Id. In my view recognition as an “additional entity” does not remove the KIC from eligibility under 25 C.F.R. Part 83 by virtue of 25 C.F.R. § 83.3(b).
The applicability of Part 83 to the KIC, however, is not determinative of my conclusion that the KIC has not met its burden of demonstrating that it is a tribe. For the purposes of this opinion, I think it sufficient to cite the regulations as illustrative of the considerations that go into federal recognition.

. In Atkinson v. Haldane, 569 P.2d 151, 156 (Alaska 1977), we noted the importance of the existence of a reservation in determining tribal status.

. Another set of federal criteria for recognition of tribes has been generated under section 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. § 476. See Felix Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law 13 (1982 ed.). Similar to the requirements set forth in 25 C.F.R. Part 83, the Department of Interior has looked to the history of the tribe’s relation to the United States government, the tribe’s exercise of political authority over its members, and the “social solidarity” of the group. Id.

. State relationships with the Indian tribes have sometimes been analyzed under the simple principle that the state police power does not extend over distinct sovereign entities. An alternative analysis, parallel to some extent, is that the federal government enjoys exclusive power to conduct Indian affairs. See McLanahan v. Tax Comm’n of Ariz., 411 U.S. 164, 172, 93 S.Ct. 1257, 1262, 36 L.Ed.2d 129, 135 (1973) (“the trend has been away from the idea of inherent Indian sovereignty as a bar to state jurisdiction and toward reliance upon federal pre-emption”), citing Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145, 93 S.Ct. 1267, 36 L.Ed.2d 114 (1973). McLanahan, however, recognized the continuing vitality of a historical sovereignty principle: “[I]t would vastly oversimplify the problem to say that nothing remains of the notion that reservation Indians are a separate people to whom state jurisdiction, and therefore state tax legislation, may not extend.” 411 U.S. at 170, 93 S.Ct. at 1261, 36 L.Ed.2d at 134. See Warren Trading Post Co. v. Ariz. Tax Comm’n, 380 U.S. 685, 85 S.Ct. 1242, 14 L.Ed.2d 165 (1965). See also F. Cohen, Indian Rights and the Federal Courts, 24 Minn.L.Rev. 145, 147 (1940) (“The right of self-government is not something granted to the Indians by any act of Congress. It is rather an inherent and original right of the Indian tribes, recognized by courts and legislators, a right of which the Indian tribes never have been deprived”).

. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 17, 8 L.Ed. 25, 31 (1831), Chief Justice John Marshall characterized the Indian tribes as “domestic dependent nations” — independent political societies whose sovereignty pre-dated the westward territorial expansion of the United States:
So much of the argument as was intended to prove the character of the Cherokees as a State, as a distinct political society separated from others, capable of managing its own affairs and governing itself, has, in the opinion of a majority of the judges, been completely successful. They have been uniformly treated as a State from the settlement of our country. The numerous treaties made with them by the United States recognize them as a people capable of maintaining the relations of peace and war, of being responsible in their political character for any violation of their engagements, or for any aggression committed on the citizens of the United States by any individual of their community. Laws have been enacted in the spirit of these treaties. The acts of our government plainly recognize the Cherokee Nation as a State, and the courts are bound by those acts.
30 U.S. (5 Pet.) at 16, 8 L.Ed. at 30. See also Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, 560-61, 8 L.Ed. 483, 501 (1832). The Court’s historical perspective of the relationship of the Indian nations to state and federal governments has survived into modern times. In McLanahan v. Tax Comm’n of Ariz., 411 U.S. 164, 172, 93 S.Ct. 1257, 1262, 36 L.Ed.2d 129, 136 (1973), the Court cautioned that “[i]t must always be remembered that the various Indian tribes were once independent and sovereign nations, and that their claim to sovereignty long predates that of our own Government.”