Court: Tribes can't use civil rights suits

WASHINGTON, May 19 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that an Indian tribe cannot sue the government under federal civil rights law.

The law was designed to secure private rights against government encroachment, the Supreme Court said, but a tribe is a "sovereign" entity like the states.

While an individual member of the tribe could sue under the law, the tribe as a whole could not, the opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.

The Bishop Paiute Tribe in California chartered and owns the Bishop Paiute Gaming Corp., which in turn operates and manages the Pauite Palace Casino.

The Inyo County, Calif., district attorney's office asked the tribe in March 1999 for the employment records of three casino employees under investigation for welfare fraud.

There were apparent discrepancies between the income the employees received from the casino and their welfare application forms, according to court records.

The tribe refused to release the records, citing a privacy policy.

The district attorney's office then obtained a search warrant, and deputies searched the casino and seized the records over tribal objections.

In July 2000, the district attorney's office asked the tribe for the records of six more casino employees. This time the tribe offered to compromise, but the district attorney's office refused.

To protect the casino against additional searches, the tribe filed suit in federal court to vindicate its status as a sovereign immune from state processes under federal law.

The tribe also sued and sought money damages under federal civil rights law, claming the searches violated the tribe's constitutional rights and its right to self-government.

A federal judge dismissed the suit, but a federal appeals court panel reversed, saying the tribe had legally sought to be protected from unlawful search and seizure, a federally guaranteed right.

Monday, the Supreme Court "vacated," or threw out, the panel's ruling.

"We hold that, in the circumstances this case presents, the tribe fails to qualify as a claimant -- a 'person' -- authorized to sue" under the principal civil rights section, Ginsburg said from the bench.

"Section 1983 (of the U.S. code) was designed to secure private rights against government encroachment," Ginsburg said. " ... But Section 1983 was not designed to advance a sovereign's prerogative to withhold evidence relevant to a criminal investigation."

The justices sent the case back down to the appeals court for a new ruling in line with the Supreme Court's opinion.

(No. 02-281, Inyo County vs. Pauite-Shoshone Indians)