Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians

Docket No.: 02-281
Certiorari Granted: Dec 2 2002
Argued: March 31, 2003
Decided: May 19, 2003

Topics:

Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983), Bivens action, Commerce Clause, Due Process, False Claims Act, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Indians, Interstate Commerce Clause, Natural Resources, Section 1983, Sherman Act, Sixth Amendment, Supremacy Clause, antitrust, equitable relief, habeas, immunity from suit, murder, preemption, privacy, probable cause, qualified immunity, search and seizure, separation of powers, sovereign immunity, stare decisis

PartyNames: Inyo County, California, et al. v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the
Petitioner: Inyo County, California, et al.
Respondent: Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Citation: CA 9, 975 F.3d 893. QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the doctrine of tribal sovere ign immunity enables Indian tribes, theirgambling casinos and other commercial businesses to prohibit the searching of their property by law enforcement officers fo r criminal evidence pertaining to thecommission of off-reservation State crimes, when the search is pursuant to a search warrant issued upon probable cause. 2. Whether such a search by State law enforcement officers constitutes a violationof the tribe's civil rights that is actionable under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court Docket

Inyo County, California, et al.
v.
Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the
538 U.S. 701 (2003)
Question:

Does a federally recognized tribe qualify as a "person" who may sue under 42 USC section 1983? Does a tribe's suit qualify for federal-court jurisdiction because it arises under some federal law other than section 1983?

Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians
ORAL ARGUMENT

March 31, 2003

Holding: vacated and remanded
Decision: Decision: 9 votes for Inyo County, 0 vote(s) against

Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians
Case Documents

1Opinion in Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians
2Opinion in Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians
Additional documents for this case are pending review.