American Indian Civil Rights Act
The American Indian Civil Rights Act, enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, aimed to address the individual rights of American Indians living under tribal governance. This legislation emerged in response to concerns regarding the lack of constitutional protections for tribal members, even after the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. While tribal governments are recognized as sovereign entities, the act introduced a specific set of rights intended to limit governmental authority and enhance individual freedoms within tribal contexts.
The act includes provisions such as the right to habeas corpus for individuals detained by tribal authorities and guarantees the free exercise of religion, while not mandating certain protections like free legal counsel in criminal cases. However, it stirred controversy as many tribal leaders viewed it as an infringement on tribal sovereignty and traditional governance practices. The legislation's focus on individual rights contrasts with many tribes' emphasis on community over individualism, leading to ongoing debates about its implications for tribal culture and self-determination. Overall, the American Indian Civil Rights Act represents a significant yet contentious effort to navigate the complex relationship between federal laws and tribal autonomy.
On this Page
American Indian Civil Rights Act
A significant but controversial move toward the guarantee of individual American Indian rights came about in special Indian titles of the Civil Rights Act signed April 11, 1968. The existence of tribal governments and tribal courts had raised the issue of protection of individual rights of Indian people living in a tribal context. Tribal governments are considered inherently sovereign since they predate the US Constitution and do not derive their power to exist or to govern from either federal or state government. Further, federal recognition or regulation of tribes does not make them part of the United States government or guarantee constitutional protections. Even with the Indian Citizenship Act (1924), the Bill of Rights did not extend to situations involving tribal government.
In 1968, when civil rights legislation was proposed to remedy inequal protections of some groups in the United States, Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina proposed bringing tribal governments into the constitutional framework of the United States. Largely because of tribal protests that the full Bill of Rights would severely upset traditional governing practices, however, a blanket extension of the Bill of Rights to tribal governments was replaced by a more selective and specific list of individual rights that were to be protected.
Title II of the act, often referred to as the Indian Bill of Rights, since it is very close to constitutional provisions, stresses the rights of individuals and so limits the authority of tribal governments. It specifically authorizes a writ of habeas corpus for anyone detained by a tribe. This bill does not prohibit “establishment of religion,” which would have prevented continuation of the quasitheocracies that form the basis of government for some Indian communities, but it does guarantee “free exercise of religion.” Also, persons are not guaranteed free counsel in criminal proceedings, and the right of indictment by grand jury is not guaranteed. Title III charged the secretary of the interior to draw up codes of justice to be used in courts of Indian offenses. Title IV repealed section 7 of Public Law 280, an act passed by Congress in 1953 that gave states authority to extend civil and criminal jurisdiction over reservations. This title also authorized the retrocession of jurisdiction already assumed by a state. Title V added “assault resulting in serious bodily injury” to offenses on reservations subject to federal jurisdiction. Title VI granted automatic approval of tribal contracts if the secretary of the interior did not act within ninety days.
The American Indian Civil Rights Act remains controversial: Many Indian people view it as a violation of tribal sovereignty. Congress unilaterally imposed the bill on tribal governments and people, and tribes have questioned the legality of permitting states to have a direct role in formulating and passing this law for tribes with no mechanism for tribes to accept or reject the legislation. Tribal culture is directly affected by this law because of the stress it places on individualism despite the fact that for most tribes, community needs take precedence over individual rights. Many Indian leaders believe the American Indian Civil Rights Act prevents tribes from exercising their inherent sovereignty.
Bibliography
Bates, Denise E. The Other Movement: Indian Rights and Civil Rights in the Deep South. Tuscaloosa: U of Alabama P, 2012. Print.
Carpenter, Kristen A., Matthew L. M. Fletcher, and Angela R. Riley. The Indian Civil Rights Act at Forty. Los Angeles: UCLA American Indian Studies Center, 2012. Print.
Gray, Christine K. The Tribal Moment in American Politics: The Struggle for Native American Sovreignty. Lanham: AltaMira, 2013. Print.
Ross, Jeffrey Ian, ed. American Indians at Risk. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2014. Print.
Seelye, James E., and Steven A. Littleton, eds. Voices of the American Indian Experience. Santa Barbara: Greenwood, 2013. Print.