Fisher v. In the Matter of the Adoption of Ivan Firecrow, etc

• Decision Date: 01 March 1976
• Docket Number: No. 75-5366,75-5366
• Citation: 424 U.S. 382,47 L.Ed.2d 106,96 S.Ct. 943
• Parties: Alva FISHER v. . In the Matter of the ADOPTION OF Ivan FIRECROW, etc
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

424 U.S. 382

96 S.Ct. 943

47 L.Ed.2d 106

Alva FISHER

v The DISTRICT COURT OF the SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MONTANA, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF ROSEBUD. In the Matter of the ADOPTION OF Ivan FIRECROW, etc.

No. 75-5366.

March 1, 1976.

Rehearing Denied April 5, 1976.

See 425 U.S. 926, 96 S.Ct. 1524.

PER CURIAM.

Disagreeing with an advisory opinion of the Appellate Court of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, the Montana Supreme Court held that the state court has jurisdiction over an adoption proceeding in which all parties are members of the Tribe and residents of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation. We reverse.

Petitioner is the mother of Ivan Firecrow. On July 1, 1969, after petitioner and Ivan's father were divorced, the Tribal Court of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe found that petitioner had neglected Ivan, awarded temporary custody to Josephine Runsabove, and made Ivan a ward of the court.¹ In 1973 the Tribal Court rejected petitioner's request to regain custody of her son.² On August 30, 1974, however, the Tribal Court entered an order granting petitioner temporary custody of Ivan "for a period of six weeks during the summer months."³

Four days before the entry of that order, Josephine Runsabove and her husband initiated an adoption proceeding in the District Court for he Sixteenth Judicial District of Montana.⁴ Petitioner moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, asserting that the Tribal Court possessed exclusive jurisdiction. After a hearing, the District Court certified to the Appellate Court of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe the question whether an ordinance of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe⁵ conferred jurisdiction upon the District Court. The Appellate Court of the Tribe expressed the opinion that it did not,⁶ and the State District Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Runsaboves then filed an original application in the Montana Supreme Court for a writ of supervisory control or other appropriate writ to set aside the order of dismissal. The Montana Supreme Court granted the requested relief, holding that the District Court possessed jurisdiction. The court reasoned that prior to the organization of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe in 1935, the Montana courts possessed jurisdiction over adoptions involving tribal members residing on the reservation and that this jurisdiction could not be unilaterally divested by tribal ordinance; that Congress recognized that jurisdiction of state courts over Indian adoptions in 25 U.S.C. § 372a; and that depriving the Montana courts of jurisdiction would deny equal protection to Indian plaintiffs, at least under the Montana Constitution. State ex rel. Firecrow v. District Court, Mont., 536 P.2d 190 (1975).⁷

In litigation between Indians and non-Indians arising out of conduct on an Indian reservation, resolution of conflicts between the jurisdiction of state and tribal courts has depended, absent a governing Act of Congress, on "whether the state action infringed on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them." Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 220, 79 S.Ct. 269, 271, 3 L.Ed.2d 251 (1959); accord, Kennerly v. District Court of Montana, 400 U.S. 423, 426-427, 91 S.Ct. 480, 481-482, 27 L.Ed.2d 507 (1971) (Per curiam ). Since this litigation involves only Indians, at least the same standard must be met before the state courts may exercise jurisdiction. Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145, 148, 93 S.Ct. 1267, 1270, 36 L.Ed.2d 114 (1973); McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 411 U.S. 164, 168-173, 179-180, 93 S.Ct. 1257, 1260-1263, 1266, 36 L.Ed.2d 129 (1973).

The right of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe to govern itself independently of state law has been consistently protected by federal statute. As early as 1877, Congress ratified an agreement between the Tribe and the United States providing that "Congress shall, by appropriate legislation, secure to (the Indians) an orderly government; they shall be subject to the laws of the United States, and each individual shall be protected in his rights of property, person, and life." 19 Stat. 256. This provision remained unaffected by the Act enabling Montana to enter the Union,⁸ and by the other statutes specifically concerned with the Northern Cheyenne Tribe.⁹ In 1935, the Tribe adopted a constitution and bylaws¹⁰ pursuant to § 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 48 Stat. 987, 25 U.S.C. § 476, a statute specifically intended to encourage Indian tribes to revitalize their self-government. Mescalero Apache Tribe, supra, 411 U.S. at 151, 93 S.Ct. at 1271. Acting pursuant to the constitution and bylaws, the Tribal Council of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe established the Tribal Court and granted it jurisdiction over adoptions "among members of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe." ¹¹

State-court jurisdiction plainly would interfere with the powers of self-government conferred upon the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and exercised through the Tribal Court. It would subject a dispute arising on the reservation among reservation Indians to a forum other than the one they have established for themselves.¹² As the present record illustrates, it would create a substantial risk of conflicting adjudications affecting the custody of the child and would cause a corresponding decline in the authority of the Tribal Court.

No federal statute sanctions this interference with tribal self-government. Montana has not been granted, nor has it assumed, civil jurisdiction over the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, either under the Act of Aug. 15, 1953, 67 Stat. 588, or under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 78, 25 U.S.C. § 1321 Et seq. And contrary to the Runsaboves' contention, 25 U.S.C. § 372a¹³ manifests no congressional intent to confer jurisdiction upon state courts over adoptions by Indians. The statute is concerned solely with the documentation necessary to prove adoption by an Indian in proceedings before the Secretary of the Interior. It recognizes adoption "by a judgment or decree of a State court" as one means of documentation but nowhere addresses the jurisdiction of state courts to render such judgments or decrees. The statute does not confer jurisdiction upon the Montana courts. See McClanahan, supra, 411 U.S., at 174-175, 93 S.Ct., at 1263; Williams, supra, 358 U.S., at 220-221, 79 S.Ct., at 270-271.

Since the adoption proceeding is appropriately characterized as litigation arising on the Indian reservation, the jurisdiction of the Tribal Court is exclusive. The Runsaboves have not sought to defend the state court's jurisdiction by arguing that any substantial part of the conduct supporting the adoption petition took place off the reservation. Cf. DeCoteau v. District County Court, 420 U.S. 425, 428-430, and n. 3, 95 S.Ct. 1082, 1085-1086, 43 L.Ed.2d 300 (1975).¹⁴

The remaining points may be dealt with briefly. The Runsaboves argue that the ordinances of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe could not deprive the Montana courts of the jurisdiction they exercised over tribal matters prior to organization of the Tribe in 1935. The tribal ordinance conferring jurisdiction on the Tribal Court was authorized by § 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. § 476. Consequently, it implements an overriding federal policy which is clearly adequate to defeat state jurisdiction over litigation involving reservation Indians. Accordingly, even if we assume that the Montana courts properly exercised adoption jurisdiction prior to the organization of the Tribe, a question we do not decide, that jurisdiction has now been pre-empted.

Finally, we reject the argument that denying the Runsaboves access to the Montana courts constitutes impermissible racial discrimination. The exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribal Court does not derive from the race of the plaintiff but rather from the quasi-sovereign status of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe under federal law. Moreover, even if a jurisdictional holding occasionally results in denying an Indian plaintiff a forum to which a non- Indian has access, such disparate treatment of the Indian is justified because it is intended to benefit the class of which he is a member by furthering the congressional policy of Indian self-government. Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 551-555, 94 S.Ct. 2474, 2483-2485, 41 L.Ed.2d 290 (1974).

The motion of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe for leave to file a brief, as Amicus curiae, is granted. The petition for certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed In forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Montana is reversed.

Motions and petition granted; judgment reversed.

It is so ordered.

1 See State ex rel. Firecrow v. District Court, Mont., 536 P.2d 190, 192 (1975).

2 In re Firecrow (Northern Cheyenne Tribal Ct., filed Aug. 1, 1973). Defendant's Exhibit C.

3 In re Firecrow (Northern Cheyenne Tribal Ct., filed Aug. 30, 1974). Defendant's Exhibit A.

4 They alleged that petitioner had voluntarily abandoned the child to Josephine Runsabove on June 2, 1969, and had not supported the child for over a year. The natural father consented to the adoption and waived further notice.

5 Chapter 3, § 2, of the Revised Law and Order Ordinances of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, approved by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, June 9, 1966. The ordinance provides:

"The Tribal Court of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation shall have jurisdiction to hear, pass upon, and approve applications for adoptions among members of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe.

"Upon proper showing and decision by the court, such adoptions shall be binding upon all concerned and hereafter only adoptions so approved by the Tribal Court shall be recognized.

"On all adoptions involving non-members of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe or non-Indians or both who wish to adopt a member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, the Tribal Court of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation shall have concurrent jurisdiction to hear, pass...