Disenrollment is not a detention under ICRA
Disenrollment of plaintiffs from Indian tribe, which resulted in a loss of access to certain facilities, did not pose a severe restraint on plaintiffs’ liberty and therefore did not amount to a detention. Alleged potential threat of future eviction was also insufficient. As federal appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review direct appeals of tribal disenrollment decisions, plaintiffs could not circumvent such jurisdictional limitations by an indirect challenge in the form of a habeas corpus petition. Disenrollment is not analogous to denaturalization. Because plaintiffs had not exhausted their claims for exclusion from reservation or denial of access, appellate court lacked jurisdiction over those claims. Because extension of habeas relief to disenrollment procedures–which were civil proceedings–would circumvent tribal sovereignty and cause undue or precipitous interference with matters such as enrollment, plaintiffs were not eligible for relief under the Indian Civil Rights Act habeas provision.
Leave a Reply
