“Enforcement of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968”
are required by the Indian Civil Rights Act. The district
court found that the Department had not promulgated a model code, but
dismissed the suit based upon Martinez.
Red Lake Court of Indian Offenses
To understand more clearly the Department of Interior's role with respect to the rights of reservation residents vis-a-vis tribal governments, the Commission hearing continued to draw upon the Bureau's recent handling of matters involving the Red Lake Tribe. As
 The plaintiffs had originally complained that their rights under the ICRA had been violated but, when defendants moved to dismiss based upon Martinez, they amended their complaint to substitute the Fifth Amendment claim against toe Secretary of the Interior for the ICRA claim.
 As early as 1977, the Interior Department was aware of resistance to the ICRA by the Red Lake Tribe. A Departmental memorandum states:
There is a fundamental problem with tech tribal council's negative stance on the applicability of the Indian Civil Rights Act....
The court is in a perilous position since it may violate the rights of defendants when it observes the rules set out in the present code. Without tribal legislative action in the nature of a major revision of the code, the court feels it cannot conform to the Act's requirements. A specific example of court-tribal council interplay is the serious problem of defense counsel. Since only one person is presently admitted to practice as lay counsel before the court, the court is faced with a dilemma when a defendant requests counsel and the person is either unavailable, unacceptable to the accused, or refuses to represent the accused.