CURING THE TRIBAL DISENROLLMENT EPIDEMIC: IN SEARCH OF A REMEDY Gabriel S. Galanda and Ryan D. Dreveskracht* This Article provides a comprehensive analysis of tribal membership, and the divestment thereof—commonly known as “disenrollment.” Chiefly caused by the proliferation of Indian gaming revenue distributions to tribal members over the last 25 years, the rate of tribal disenrollment has spiked to epidemic proportions. There is not an adequate remedy to stem the crisis or redress related Indian civil rights violations. This Article attempts to fill that gap. In Part I, we detail the origins of tribal membership, concluding that the present practice of disenrollment is, for the most part, a relic of the federal government’s Indian assimilation and termination policies of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In Part II, we use empirical disenrollment case studies over the last 100 years to show those federal policies at work during that span, and thus how disenrollment operates in ways that are antithetical to tribal sovereignty and self-determination. Those case studies highlight the close correlation between federally prescribed distributions of tribal governmental assets and monies to tribal members on a per-capita basis, and tribal governmental mass disenrollment of tribal members. In Part III, we set forth various proposed solutions to curing the tribal disenrollment epidemic, in hope of spurring discussion and policymaking about potential remedies at the various levels of federal and tribal government. Our goal is to find a cure, before it is too late. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 385 A. Overview .................................................................................................... 385 B. Background ................................................................................................ 389 I. ORIGINS OF TRIBAL “MEMBERSHIP” ................................................................. 393 A. Post-Contact and Pre-Constitutional Development (1492–1789) .............. 394 * Gabriel S. Galanda is an owner of Galanda Broadman, P.L.L.C., an American Indian-owned law firm dedicated to advancing and defending Indian rights. Ryan Dreveskracht is an associate at Galanda Broadman, P.L.L.C. Mr. Galanda is a descendant of the Nomlaki and Concow Tribes, who is a citizen of and otherwise belongs to the Round Valley Indian Tribes. The Authors would like to thank Gabriela M. Rios for her excellent research assistance, and Professors Eric D. Eberhard, Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Carla F. Fredericks, Robert Hershey, David Wilkins, and Robert A. Williams, Jr., for their thoughtful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this work. Any mistakes are our own. 384 ARIZONA LAW REVIEW [VOL. 57:2 B. The Formative Years (1789–1871) ............................................................ 397 C. Allotment and Assimilation (1871–1928) .................................................. 399 D. Indian Reorganization (1928–1942)........................................................... 402 E. Termination (1943–1961) ........................................................................... 403 F. Self-Determination and Self-Governance (1961–Present) .......................... 404 G. Indian Gaming & Self-Termination (1988–Present) .................................. 408 II. CASE STUDIES .................................................................................................. 413 A. Disenrollment and the Effect of the U.S. Government’s Assimilation Policies..................................................................................................... 413 1. Case Study: Osage Allotment ................................................................. 414 2. Case Study: Creek Nation ...................................................................... 418 3. Analysis .................................................................................................. 421 B. Disenrollment and the Effect of the IRA .................................................... 422 1. Case Study: Nooksack ............................................................................ 422 2. Analysis .................................................................................................. 427 C. Disenrollment and the Effect of the Termination ....................................... 429 1. Case Study: Northern Ute ....................................................................... 430 2. Analysis .................................................................................................. 430 D. Disenrollment in the Modern Era ............................................................... 431 1. Case Study: Paskenta Disenrollment ...................................................... 431 2. Analysis .................................................................................................. 439 III. MASS TRIBAL DISENROLLMENT AT A CRITICAL POINT ................................... 443 A. Lack of a Current Remedy ......................................................................... 445 1. Federal Courts ........................................................................................ 445 2. State Courts ............................................................................................ 446 3. Tribal Courts .......................................................................................... 447 4. International Forums .............................................................................. 448 B. Finding a Remedy ...................................................................................... 450 1. Tribal Responsibility .............................................................................. 450 2. Litigation ................................................................................................ 453 3. Administrative Law ................................................................................ 457 4. Indian Civil Rights Act Amendment ...................................................... 459 5. Truth and Reconciliation ........................................................................ 462 6. The Human Rights Approach ................................................................. 462 a. Tribal Obligations as Quasi-State Entities ......................................... 464 b. Tribal Obligations as Non-State Actors ............................................. 467 c. U.S. Obligations—State Organs ........................................................ 468 d. U.S. Obligations—Failure to Prevent ................................................ 469 7. Intra/Intertribal Disenrollment Appellate Court ..................................... 472 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 473 2015] IN SEARCH OF A REMEDY 385 INTRODUCTION A. Overview As sovereign nations with the right to “make their own laws and be ruled by them,”1 tribal governments are free to define conditions of tribal membership.2 “Disenrollment”—a term not known to exist in any traditional American Indian language3—is the other side of that coin; it is the divestment of tribal membership by a tribe after the “absolute right” of membership is conferred upon a person.4 Chiefly caused by the proliferation of Indian gaming revenue distributions to tribal members over the last 25 years, 5 disenrollment is rapidly expanding 1. Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 220 (1958). 2. FELIX S. COHEN, HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW 122 (1945); see also Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 72 n.32 (1978) (“A tribe's right to define its own membership for tribal purposes has long been recognized as central to its existence as an independent political community.”). 3. Gabriel S. Galanda, Disenrollment Is a Tool of the Colonizers, INDIAN COUNTRY TODAY, (Jan. 16, 2015), http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/ 2015/01/16/disenrollment-tool-colonizers (recounting that when Eric Bernando, a Grand Ronde descendant of his tribe’s Treaty Chief and fluent Chinook Wawa speaker, was asked “if there was a Chinook Wawa word or notion that means ‘disenrollment,’ he unequivocally answered, ‘no’”). 4. Terry–Carpenter v. Las Vegas Paiute Tribal Council, Nos. 02-01, 01-02, 10 (Las Vegas Paiute Ct. App. 2003). 5. Alto v. Black, 738 F.3d 1111, 1116 n.2 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Paige Cornwell, ‘Nooksack 306’ Fight to Remain in Tribe, SEATTLE TIMES, Aug. 26, 2013, at B1. Although sometimes veiled as a discovery that a member’s application material was “fraudulent or incorrect,” in actuality these disputes often spring from “politics,” “greed” and “infighting,” all of which are tragically on the rise. Oscar Yale Lewis III, The Shifting Sands of American Indian Policy, in BEST PRACTICES FOR DEFENDING TRIBAL MEMBERSHIP CASES: LEADING LAWYERS ON NAVIGATING TRIBAL MEMBERSHIP ENROLLMENT ISSUES 1, 8–9 (2013), 2013 WL 5293045; see also Tribes Cutting Off Members in Bloodline Clashes, SANTA MONICA DAILY PRESS, Mar. 20, 2012, at 8 (“Somewhere, as tribes have tried to reconstruct their sense of nationhood, particularly tribes with casino money, they hit upon disenrollment as a way to settle disputes over personality issues and money.”); Tom Kizzia, A Tribe Divided, ANCHORAGE DAILY NEWS, Jul. 5, 1998, at A1 (tribal member stating that, “[i]f somebody disagrees with you, just disenroll them. You got no problem anymore”). 386 ARIZONA