United States Commission on Civil Rights

Confidential Draft Report
“Enforcement of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968”

May 1990

Indian Civil Rights enforcement, p. 45
a  This was a joint request for inserting this language so that we had something to enforce it with, and I believe the failure to do so has seriously shortened any possibility of using that as an enforcement tool, assuming ongoing violations. [91]

  Asked why the Bureau had deemed it appropriate to turn administration of the court over to the tribe; Secretary Swimmer indicated that "[it] is the intent of the Bureau to withdraw from all CFR courts as soon as practicable." [92]  He later explained:

Our position is that we wish to get the tribe in a position of operating its court system as quickly as possible and begin working with the tribe to try to have a quality court system as soon as possible out
     [91] Id. at 61.  Asked to comment on the feasibility of pursuing a contract action based upon the theory that the ICRA is applicable Federal law under the language of the contract, Mr. Arnold responsed:

The question is--we are really not talking about an enforcement provision per se.  We're talking about a cancellation provision.  In other words, we're going at it where it hurts, with money.
I can get a lot of things accomplished by not giving people money.  In other words, if I've got $308 million, which is what I think the Federal Government will give to Indian allotments this year under the Entitlement Act, believe me, I can do a lot with that in terms of contractual language, language that would be agreeable both to the tribal programs and to the Federal attorneys.


     [92]  Id. at 26.

< HOME >
< NEXT >