## Facts

- Chilkat Indian Village, IRA (the Village), a federally recognized tribe in Klukwan, Alaska, asserted collective ownership of five significant cultural items known as the “Whale House artifacts” (four carved house posts and a rain screen).
- The artifacts were located on the Village’s fee land within Indian country and were treated by the Village as communal cultural property held for the clan and village, not as property that individual members could sell on their own authority.
- In 1976, the Village adopted a tribal ordinance prohibiting removal of traditional artifacts and clan crests from the village without prior notice to, and approval by, the Chilkat Village Council (the governing body).
- In 1984, Michael R. Johnson (a non-Indian) and associated defendants, including a group of Village members often described as the “Whale House Group,” removed the artifacts from the Village and transported them off-site, intending to sell them.
- The Village maintained that, under tribal law and custom, any sale or disposition of such artifacts required permission from the full clan council (and compliance with the ordinance), not merely consent from some individuals connected to the Whale House.
- Related federal litigation occurred earlier concerning the same artifacts; the tribal court treated that litigation as separate background and proceeded to adjudicate the Village’s tribal-law claims.
- In 1990, the Village filed this civil action in the Chilkat Indian Village Tribal Court alleging conversion of “tribal trust property” and violation of the 1976 ordinance, seeking declaratory relief, return of the artifacts, and monetary relief.
- At a multi-week trial, the court heard testimony, including from tribal cultural authorities, about the artifacts’ historical, cultural, and spiritual importance and about tribal governance rules concerning control of such property.

## Issues

1. Whether the Chilkat Indian Village Tribal Court had civil jurisdiction over Michael Johnson (a non-Indian) and other defendants for the removal and attempted sale of the Whale House artifacts taken from Village fee land within Indian country.
2. Whether, under tribal law and custom, the Whale House artifacts were communal “tribal trust property” subject to tribal control rather than individually owned items that particular members could alienate.
3. Whether defendants violated the Village’s 1976 ordinance by removing the artifacts without prior notice to and approval by the Village Council.
4. Whether defendants’ conduct constituted conversion under applicable tribal law.
5. What relief was proper, including return of the artifacts and an award of return-related expenses, litigation costs, and fees.

## Decision

- The tribal court entered judgment for the Village.
- The court held it had authority to adjudicate the dispute, including claims against Johnson, even though he was not an Indian, based on the location of the conduct and the Village’s interests in enforcing its law protecting communal cultural property.
- The court determined the Whale House artifacts were tribal trust property subject to collective control under tribal law and could not be removed and sold based only on the wishes of a subset of individuals.
- The court found defendants’ removal of the artifacts without the required notice to and approval from the Village Council violated the 1976 ordinance.
- The court concluded defendants’ actions amounted to conversion of the Village’s protected cultural property.
- The court ordered return of the artifacts to the Village and awarded the Village expenses associated with the artifacts’ return, as well as litigation costs and fees.

## Legal Principles

- A tribal court may exercise civil authority over nonmembers for conduct occurring within Indian country when the dispute involves tribal property interests and enforcement of tribal law protecting the community’s welfare and governance.
- Tribal law and tribal custom may determine whether culturally significant items are held collectively and whether individual members lack power to transfer or dispose of those items.
- A tribal ordinance regulating removal of traditional artifacts from the village, and requiring Village Council approval, is enforceable through tribal civil proceedings.
- Removing and attempting to sell protected communal cultural property without required tribal authorization may constitute conversion under tribal law and justify injunctive relief requiring return of the property.
- Restitutionary relief in tribal court may include return of unique cultural property and reimbursement of reasonable expenses and litigation costs incurred to recover and protect that property.

## Conclusion

Chilkat Indian Village, IRA v. Johnson held that the Village could enforce its 1976 ordinance in tribal court to protect the Whale House artifacts as communal tribal trust property, could adjudicate claims against a non-Indian involved in their removal and attempted sale from Village land within Indian country, and could order the artifacts returned along with recovery of return expenses and litigation costs and fees.


Chilkat Indian Village, IRA v. Johnson, 20 Indian L. Rep. 6127 (1993)