NO. In the Supreme Court of the United States ALBERT P. ALTO, et al., Petitioners, v. SALLY JEWELL, Secretary of Department of Interior, et al., Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Tracy L. Emblem Counsel of Record P.O. Box 300764 Escondido, CA 92030 (760) 300-5837 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioners Becker Gallagher · Cincinnati, OH · Washington, D.C. · 800.890.5001 i QUESTIONS PRESENTED The questions presented are (1) whether the doctrine of res judicata and collateral estoppel precluded the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Interior in 2011 from revisiting his predecessor’s 1995 final and conclusive decision about petitioners’ status as Native Americans; and (2) whether the Assistant Secretary’s 2011 decision to declassify petitioners’ Native American Indian status violated the Administrative Procedures Act. ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioners are individuals named as follows: Albert P. Alto, Andre E. Alto, Anthony Alto, Brandon Alto, Chastity Alto, Christopher J. Alto, Daniel J. Alto, Jr. Daniel J. Alto, Sr., Dominique N. Alto, Raymond Alto, Raymond E. Alto, Raymond J. Alto, Robert Alto, Victoria (Alto) Ballew, Angela Ballon, Juan J. Ballon, Rebecca Ballon, Rudy Ballon, Janice (Alto) Banderas, Peter Banderas, Victor Banderas, Monica (Sepeda) Diaz, Anthony Forrester, Dustin Forrester, Johanna (Alto) Forrester, Sarah Forrester, Ernest Gomez, Henrietta (Alto) Gomez, Kathleen Gomez, Humberto R. Green, Lydia (Alto) Green, Paul Anthony Green, Mary Jo (Alto) Hurtado, Justin A. Islas, Cynthia (Sepeda) Ledesma, Destiny C. Ledesma, Isabelle M. (Alto) Sepeda, Lupe Sepeda, Deborah L. (Alto) Vargas, Desiree Vargas, Jeremiah Vargas, Jessiah Vargas, and Terry E. Weight, individuals, and Pamela J. Alto as guardian ad litem for Marcus M. Green, Pedro Banderas as guardian ad litem for Reina A. Banderas, and Dawn Castillo as guardian ad litem for Alexis N. Ledesma. Petitioners sued respondents, Department of Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs under the Administrative Procedures Act. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING ............. ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................. vi PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ...... 1 OPINIONS BELOW ......................... 1 JURISDICTION ............................ 1 RELEVANT STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.......... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................. 2 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ................ 4 A. Assistant Secretary Deer’s 1995 final decision. ............................. 7 B. The Enrollment Committee’s 2008 Subsequent 3-2 action................... 8 C. The Regional Director’s 2008 Decision. ..... 9 D. Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk’s 2011 Decision. ............................ 10 E. The District Court found in favor of petitioners’ succeeding on the merits and issued a preliminary injunction order. .... 11 F. The District Court reversed course and affirmed the Assistant Secretary’s 2011 decision and order..................... 13 iv G. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision. ............................ 13 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ....... 14 I. The Ninth Circuit and District Court’s decisions affirming the Assistant Secretary’s decision and order ignored important public policy and law–the Department of Interior’s duty to apply principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel because the same claim had been previously adjudicated and a final and conclusive decision was issued.............................. 14 II. The Assistant Secretary’s 2011 decision to declassify Marcus Sr.’s, status as “non-Indian” to disenroll petitioners was arbitrary. There must be clear and convincing evidence to divest the petitioners of their Indian citizenship and federal recognition as Native American Indians................................. 18 CONCLUSION ............................ 23 APPENDIX Appendix A Memorandum in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (September 20, 2016) ..........App. 1 Appendix B Order (1) Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment; and (2) Granting Defendants’ Cross- Motion for Summary Judgment in the United States District Court Southern District of California (September 30, 2015) ..........App. 6 v Appendix C Judgment in a Civil Case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (September 30, 2015) .........App. 56 Appendix D Order Granting Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 4] in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (December 19, 2011) .........App. 60 Appendix E Order of the United States United States Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary (January 28, 2011) ..........App. 111 Appendix F 25 C.F.R. Part 76...........App. 152 Appendix G Appeal Decision of the United States Department of the Interior, Pacific Regional Office (November 26, 2008) ........App. 171 Appendix HLetter to U.S. Department of the Interior from Robert Phelps, Ph.D., Vice Chairman, San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians (August 30, 2008) ...........App. 189 Appendix I Appeal Decision of the United States Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary (April 10, 1995) ............App. 209 Appendix J U.S. Const. amend. V 5 U.S.C. § 706..............App. 214 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Dalson v. Pacific Regional Director, 46 IBIA 209 (2008) .................... 14, 15 Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (1981) ...................... 23 Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978) ..................... 4, 16 United States v. Utah Mining Constr. Co., 384 U.S. 394 (1966) ...................... 17 CONSTITUTION U.S. Const. amend. V ........................ 1 STATUTES AND REGULATIONS 5 U.S.C. § 706 .............................. 1 25 U.S.C. § 13 ............................. 20 25 U.S.C. § 479 ............................ 20 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) .......................... 1 25 C.F.R. Part 48......................... 5, 13 25 C.F.R. § 48.14 (d) ........................ 10 25 C.F.R. Part 76....................... passim 25 C.F.R. § 76.4............................. 6 25 C.F.R. § 76.14...................... 6, 14, 17 25 C.F.R. § 290.2 ........................... 20 vii 25 C.F.R. § 290.14 .......................... 20 OTHER AUTHORITIES Gabriel S. Galanda and Ryan D. Dreveskracht, Curing the Tribal Disenrollment Epidemic: In Search of a Remedy, 57 Ariz. L. Rev. 383 (2015) ........................... 16, 18, 23 http://thelawdictionary.org/conclusive/ ......... 14 https://www.bia.gov/FAQs ................... 18 http://www.dictionary.com/browse/conclusive .... 14 https://www.ihs.gov/ihm/ .................... 22 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ conclusive.............................. 14 Tribal Disenrollment: The New Wave of Genocide, Johnnie Jae (Feb. 11, 2016) www.http://nativenewsonline.net ........... 21 1 PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioners, Albert Alto, et al., respectfully petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that affirmed the Assistant Secretary’s 2011 decision and order. OPINIONS BELOW The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is set forth in an unpublished memorandum. (Pet. App. 1) The Regional Director’s November 2008 decision in favor of petitioners remaining federally recognized tribal members is unpublished. (Pet. App. 171) The Assistant Secretary’s January 28, 2011, decision and order is unpublished. (Pet. App. 111) The district court’s opinion granting a preliminary injunction in favor of petitioners is unpublished. (Pet. App. 60) The district court’s opinion granting summary judgment in favor of defendants is unpublished. (Pet. App. 6) JURISDICTION The Ninth Circuit’s judgment was entered on September 20, 2016. (Pet. App. 1) This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). RELEVANT STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS 25 C.F.R. Part 76. This case also involves due process considerations under 5 U.S.C. § 706 and the Fifth Amendment in that Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk’s 2011 decision and order resulted in a loss of citizenship and declassification of petitioners’ Native 2 American Indian status, similar to a denaturalization order. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Petitioners’ case involves a recurring theme in Indian Country. Disenrollment of federally recognized tribal members despite final Department of Interior decisions finding individuals eligible for tribal membership. See Aguayo v. Jewell, Docket No. 16-660 filed Nov. 14, 2016. Under 25 C.F.R. Part 76, adopted by the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians as its enrollment ordinance, the Assistant Secretary had “final and conclusive” authority to determine the Band’s membership. Petitioners were enrolled as members of the Band pursuant to Assistant Secretary–Indian Affairs, Ada Deer’s 1995 final decision that concluded that petitioners’ ancestor, Marcus Sr., was 4/4 degree Indian. Assistant Secretary Deer’s decision adjudicated the petitioners’ rights. Petitioners participated as members of the Band for sixteen years, including holding governmental offices and establishing the Band’s successful casino. In 2008, by a 3-2 vote, the Band’s enrollment committee recommended disenrollment of all Marcus Sr. descendants. In support of its disenrollment recommendation, the committee submitted a baptismal record that purportedly recorded Marcus’ baptism in 1907. The baptismal certificate cited Jose Alto as the child’s