should give deference to the tribe's reasonable interpretation of its own law in this regard." Prairie Island Community v. Minneapolis Area Director, 25 IBIA 187, 192 (1994). The Bureau should refrain from interpreting tribal law unless it must do so in order to make a decision which it is required to make in furtherance of its government-to-government relationship with the tribe. Sandra Maroquin v. Anadarko Area Director, 29 IBIA 45 (1996) citing Parmenton Decorah. The Bureau may employ the general rules of statutory construction when it reviews or interprets tribal constitutions or ordinances. Shakopee, 27 IBIA 163 (1995). When it must interpret tribal law the Bureau should do so in a manner which avoids the absurd result of rendering the tribal government totally inoperative. Carris LaRocque, Melvin Lenoir, Bruce Morin, Lee Gourneau, Douglas DeLorme and Raphael DeCoteau v. Aberdeen Area Director, 29 IBIA 201 (1996). Review of tribal ordinances, even though required by a tribal constitution, is an intrusion into tribal self-government. Review should therefore be undertaken in such a way as to avoid unnecessary interference with tribal self- government. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. Aberdeen Area Director, 24 IBIA 55 (1993); Ottawa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma v. Muskogee Area Director, 24 IBIA 92 (1993); Wallace W. Wells, Jr., Randy Shields, & Leonard Pease, Jr., v. Acting Aberdeen Area Director, 24 IBIA 142 (1993); Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation v. Phoenix Area Director, 21 IBIA 24 (1991). The BIA properly disapproves a tribal ordinance found to be in conflict with Federal law. White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Acting Phoenix Area Director, 21 IBIA 151 (1992). A lack of absolute legal certainty as to whether the ordinance conflicts with Federal law, however, weighs in favor of approval. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, 24 IBIA 55 (1993). The Bureau properly declines to alter the established manner in which it has been dealing with a tribal government in the absence of definitive evidence that such a change was desired by the tribal membership, as opposed to being desired by a faction of the tribal council which is attempting to control the tribal government's affairs during a serious internal crisis. Frederick Tomah, Danya Boyce, Sally Lindsay, and Anthony Tomah v. Acting Eastern Area Director, 30 IBIA 92 (1996), Reconsideration Denied 30 IBIA 90 (1996). The Bureau should decline to hold fact-finding hearings in such matters because such hearings would constitute not only an unwarranted intrusion into tribal government, but would be a "retreat into the old days of paternalism." Webster Cusick v. Acting Eastern Area Director, 31 IBIA 255 (1997). 1
1 Wilfahrt - The BIA Must Give Deference to Tribal Interpretation of Tribal Governing Documents | U.S. Department of the Interior (doi.gov), https://www.doi.gov/oha/ibia/Wilfahrt-The-BIA-Must-Give-Deference-to-Tribal- Interpretation-of-Tribal-Governing-Documents#:~:text=Announcements- ,Wilfahrt%20%2D%20The%20BIA%20Must%20Give%20Deference%20to%20Tribal%20Interpretation%20of,Jim%2 C%20and%20Patricia%20Stevens%20v.
5
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs