Santa Ysabel Band

Santa Ysabel Announces Support of Same Sex Marriage

Victoria Sweet1 Comment

Among those who have suffered the denial of basic human rights in this country, Native Americans can unfortunately take a prominent place. Because their historic experience of prejudice strongly resonates to this day, the Santa Ysabel Tribe, founded in 1893 in California, has announced its firm support for the LGBT community as it strives for same-sex marriage equality and an end to governmental discrimination. As sovereign nations, Tribes in the United States have the power to issue proclamations on public policy issues affecting their membership and others occupying their reservations.

Santa Ysabel is one of only four Tribes in the U.S., and the only Tribe in California, to date, to recognize same sex marriage. The Santa Ysabel Tribe’s announcement comes as the Supreme Court contemplates the constitutionality of DOMA and Californians await a decision regarding the legality of prop 8 in their state.

Story here.

Federal Sovereign Immunity Precludes Suit re: Intertribal Reservation Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The case is Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians v. Salazar (S.D. Cal.). Here are the materials:

Interior Motion to Dismiss

Mesa Grande Opposition

Interior Reply

Mesa Grande v Salazar DCT Order

An excerpt:

This case arises from a dispute between two neighboring Indian tribes over beneficial title to several thousand acres of land in this district. Its origins stretch back over a century. According to the FAC, President Grant issued an executive order setting aside approximately 15,000 acres for Mission Indians in California known as “Santa Ysabel — including Mesa Grande.” In a second order in 1883, President Arthur set aside 120 acres for the “Mesa Grande Indian Reservation.”

* * *

The fact that Plaintiff wants to have the current patents — under which the United States is trustee and Santa Ysabel the beneficiary — canceled and reissued to name the United States as trustee and Plaintiff as beneficiary does not change the analysis. The QTA’s Indian lands exception was intended to allow the United States to carry out its commitments to Indian tribes. Block, 461 U.S. at 283; Mottaz, 476 U.S. at 842-43 and n.6. While issuing a land patent in favor of Plaintiff might promote this goal, it would have the effect of taking land from Santa Ysabel. Plaintiff may be tacitly viewing this action as essentially a dispute between it and Santa Ysabel, with the United States as a disinterested stakeholder. Because Plaintiff cannot proceed against Santa Ysabel, it is therefore left to proceed against the United States. Yet allowing Plaintiff or any other litigant to sue the United States to cancel a land patent issued in favor of an Indian tribe would interfere with the United States’ trust commitment to that tribe, which is the very reason the United States has retained its immunity in such matters.