## Facts

- The Hoopa Valley Tribal Council enacted an ordinance authorizing exclusion of persons from the Hoopa Valley Reservation for specified grounds, including (1) “repeated commission of a crime or breach of the peace” under tribal, state, or federal law and (2) “unauthorized entry” onto tribal or individual land.
- The Council later clarified that trafficking drugs within the reservation’s exterior boundaries constitutes “unauthorized entry” for purposes of the ordinance.
- In 2012, the Council petitioned the Hoopa Valley Tribal Court for an order excluding Arthur Jones, a tribal member, from the reservation based on (1) repeated commission of crimes and (2) unauthorized entry, as clarified by the drug-trafficking provision.
- Jones had pled guilty in federal court to transportation of controlled substances and possession of controlled substances for sale, and the underlying conduct occurred within the reservation’s boundaries.
- Jones also had a prior felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance.
- The tribal trial court granted the Council’s petition and ordered Jones excluded from the reservation.
- Jones appealed to the Hoopa Valley Tribal Court of Appeals, arguing that the exclusion order functioned as a criminal penalty beyond the Tribal Court’s authority and that the ordinance was unenforceable because it was unconstitutionally vague.

## Issues

1. Whether the Tribe and Tribal Court had authority to impose an exclusion order against a tribal member for drug-related criminal conduct, or whether exclusion must be treated as a criminal punishment subject to limits on tribal criminal jurisdiction.
2. Whether the exclusion ordinance, including the “repeated commission of a crime” and “unauthorized entry” provisions (as clarified to include drug trafficking), was unconstitutionally vague as applied to Jones.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held that the Tribe’s power to exclude persons from tribal territory is an aspect of tribal sovereignty and functions as a civil, regulatory control on presence within the reservation rather than a criminal sentence.
- Because the exclusion order was civil/regulatory in character, the court rejected Jones’s argument that the order exceeded the Tribe’s criminal jurisdiction or amounted to an impermissible criminal penalty.
- The court rejected the vagueness challenge, concluding the ordinance provided sufficient notice and enforceable standards when it tied “crime” to violations of tribal, state, or federal law and when the Council’s clarification identified drug trafficking within the reservation as “unauthorized entry.”
- The court affirmed the tribal trial court’s order excluding Jones from the Hoopa Valley Reservation.

## Legal Principles

- Tribal sovereignty includes authority to control access to tribal lands and to exclude individuals from the reservation under tribal law.
- An exclusion order may be treated as a civil regulatory measure aimed at controlling presence within tribal territory, even when based on conduct that is also criminal under tribal, state, or federal law.
- An exclusion ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague as applied when it relies on identifiable legal predicates (criminal offenses defined by tribal, state, or federal law) and provides additional clarity through legislative clarification of covered conduct (such as defining reservation drug trafficking as unauthorized entry).
- Appellate review sustains an exclusion order when the record shows qualifying conduct within the ordinance’s terms and the ordinance supplies adequate notice and standards for enforcement.

## Conclusion

The Hoopa Valley Tribal Court of Appeals affirmed the exclusion of Arthur Jones from the Hoopa Valley Reservation, holding that exclusion is a civil territorial remedy within tribal sovereignty rather than a criminal sentence, and that the exclusion ordinance—grounded in crimes defined by tribal, state, or federal law and clarified to treat drug trafficking within the reservation as unauthorized entry—was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Jones’s repeated drug-related offenses.


Hoopa Valley Tribal Council v. Jones, No. A-12-002, 2013 Hoopa Valley App. LEXIS 1, 11 NICS App. 100 (2013)