## Facts

- Chilkat Indian Village, a federally recognized tribe organized under the Indian Reorganization Act, owns fee lands in and around Klukwan, Alaska.
- The dispute concerned Tlingit cultural property: four carved wooden posts and a wooden rain screen associated with the “Whale House” in Klukwan.
- In 1976, the Village Council enacted an ordinance barring persons from entering Village property to arrange the purchase or removal of artifacts and traditional artwork without Council permission.
- In 1984, individuals removed the artifacts from Klukwan and delivered them to Michael R. Johnson, a non-Indian art dealer, without approval from the Village Council or the tribe.
- Alaska authorities did not bring charges after the Village sought state action.
- The Village filed suit in federal district court seeking return of the artifacts and damages, alleging (1) violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1163 (theft/embezzlement from tribal organizations) and (2) violation of the tribal ordinance.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding § 1163 created no private civil remedy and the ordinance claim did not arise under federal law.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1163 implies a private civil cause of action for a tribe to recover property or damages.
2. Whether a tribe’s claim to enforce a tribal ordinance against non-Indian defendants “arises under” federal law for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1362.
3. Whether federal jurisdiction exists over ordinance-enforcement claims against tribal members as well as nonmembers.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the § 1163 claim, holding the statute does not create an implied private right of action.
- The court reversed dismissal of the ordinance claim against non-Indian defendants, holding federal-question jurisdiction existed because the claim required determining the scope of tribal authority over non-Indians.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the ordinance claim against tribal-member defendants, holding the dispute did not present a substantial federal question and was primarily a matter of tribal law.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the ordinance-based claims against non-Indian defendants.

## Legal Principles

- A federal criminal statute does not support an implied private civil remedy absent textual, structural, or historical indications of congressional intent to create one; 18 U.S.C. § 1163 provides criminal enforcement, not a civil cause of action by tribes.
- Federal-question jurisdiction exists when adjudication requires deciding the source or limits of a tribe’s sovereign authority under federal law, including the extent of tribal regulatory power over non-Indians.
- Claims involving internal enforcement of tribal law against tribal members generally do not, by themselves, raise a substantial federal question sufficient for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1362.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that § 1163 cannot be used by a tribe as an implied civil recovery statute, but that a tribe’s effort to enforce its ordinance against non-Indians can arise under federal law because it turns on federally defined limits of tribal sovereignty; internal ordinance disputes with tribal members remain outside federal-question jurisdiction.


Chilkat Indian Village v. Johnson, 870 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1989)