## Facts

- John and Jane Doe petitioned to adopt a minor child after the child’s biological parents’ rights were terminated following severe abuse and neglect.
- Because the child might qualify as an “Indian child,” the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes received notice and intervened in the adoption proceeding, asserting that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) applied.
- In discovery, the Does requested production of the child’s biological father’s tribal enrollment application (an older application submitted to the Tribes).
- The Tribes refused to produce the enrollment application, citing tribal confidentiality rules, but did provide documentation showing the father was an enrolled member.
- The Does moved to compel production, stating they wanted to use the application to challenge the father’s eligibility for membership and, in turn, the child’s asserted ICWA status.
- The magistrate court denied the Tribes’ request for a protective order, ordered the application produced, and imposed sanctions when the Tribes did not comply.
- The magistrate court also issued a temporary injunction barring the Tribes from enrolling the child during the adoption litigation and later limited the Tribes’ ability to present evidence related to ICWA status as a discovery sanction.
- The magistrate court ultimately found the record insufficient to establish that the child was an “Indian child” under ICWA and concluded ICWA did not govern the adoption, but it considered ICWA placement preferences in assessing the child’s best interests and granted the adoption to the Does.
- The magistrate court ordered the Tribes to pay a share of the attorney fees for counsel appointed for the child and also awarded attorney fees to the Does against the Tribes.
- The Tribes appealed multiple rulings (including sanctions, fees, and the enrollment injunction). The Does cross-appealed on fee-related issues.

## Issues

1. Whether tribal sovereign immunity barred the magistrate court’s monetary discovery sanctions and attorney-fee awards against the Tribes absent a clear waiver or congressional authorization.
2. Whether the magistrate court could enjoin the Tribes from enrolling the child during the state-court adoption proceeding.
3. Whether the magistrate court abused its discretion by imposing non-monetary discovery sanctions that restricted the Tribes’ ability to present evidence on the child’s ICWA status.
4. Whether the magistrate court erred in concluding that ICWA did not apply because the record did not establish the child was an “Indian child,” and whether it was error to consider ICWA placement preferences in the best-interests analysis despite that finding.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court held that tribal sovereign immunity barred money awards against the Tribes—including monetary discovery sanctions and attorney-fee obligations—absent an unequivocal waiver by the Tribes or a clear congressional abrogation, and it reversed those monetary awards.
- The court reversed the magistrate court’s non-monetary discovery sanction that restricted the Tribes’ ability to present evidence related to the child’s ICWA status, concluding the sanction was an abuse of discretion.
- The court reversed the magistrate court’s injunction preventing the Tribes from enrolling the child, concluding that the order improperly interfered with the Tribes’ power over membership decisions.
- The court affirmed the magistrate court’s determination that ICWA did not govern the adoption because the record before the court did not establish that the child met ICWA’s definition of an “Indian child.”
- The court upheld the magistrate court’s consideration of ICWA placement preferences as part of the best-interests inquiry even after finding ICWA inapplicable.
- The court denied requests for attorney fees on appeal and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Under ICWA, an “Indian child” is an unmarried person under age 18 who is either (a) a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe or (b) eligible for membership and the biological child of a tribe member. 25 U.S.C. § 1903(4).
- Indian tribes are generally immune from money judgments (including attorney-fee awards and monetary discovery sanctions) unless the tribe clearly waives immunity or Congress clearly authorizes the award.
- A tribe’s participation in state-court litigation (including intervention) does not, by itself, create a broad waiver of sovereign immunity for monetary awards.
- Tribal membership and enrollment decisions are for the tribe; state courts may not issue orders that interfere with a tribe’s control over who may be enrolled.
- Discovery sanctions must be proportionate and consistent with the court’s obligation to decide federal-law questions (such as ICWA applicability) on a fair record; sanctions that prevent a party from presenting evidence on a central statutory issue may be an abuse of discretion.
- Even when ICWA does not apply as governing federal law, a state court may consider ICWA’s placement preferences as a reference point within a state-law best-interests analysis.

## Conclusion

Doe v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes holds that Idaho courts could not impose monetary sanctions or attorney-fee awards against the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes without a clear waiver or congressional authorization and could not enjoin the Tribes from enrolling the child, while also affirming that ICWA did not apply on the record presented and allowing the trial court to consider ICWA placement preferences as part of its best-interests decision.


Doe v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, 367 P.3d 136 (2016)