## Facts

- The Santa Clara Pueblo adopted a 1939 membership ordinance addressing children of marriages between Pueblo members and nonmembers.
- The ordinance granted membership to children of male Pueblo members who married nonmembers but categorically denied membership to children of female Pueblo members who married nonmembers.
- The ordinance was adopted amid increased mixed marriages and concerns about greater demands on land and tribal resources.
- Prior to 1939, the Pueblo determined membership for children of mixed marriages on an individual basis, including some children of female members.
- Julia Martinez, a full-blooded Pueblo member, married a Navajo man; their children participated in Pueblo language, customs, and religion but were denied membership under the ordinance.
- Denial of membership carried significant consequences, including loss of tribal political rights (voting and holding office) and limitations on residence security and inheritance of possessory interests in Pueblo property.
- Plaintiffs (female members married to nonmembers and their children) brought a federal class action alleging the ordinance violated the equal protection and due process provisions of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 (ICRA), 25 U.S.C. § 1302(8).

## Issues

1. Whether ICRA, including 25 U.S.C. § 1302(8), applies to and restricts a tribal membership ordinance.
2. Whether ICRA permits a federal cause of action and federal court jurisdiction for equitable relief against a tribe and its officials, notwithstanding tribal sovereignty and immunity.
3. Whether the ordinance’s sex-based distinction violates ICRA’s equal protection guarantee and, relatedly, deprives affected persons of liberty or property without due process of law.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court and remanded.
- The court held that ICRA provides a federal basis to challenge tribal governmental actions alleged to violate § 1302 and that tribal sovereignty did not bar federal review in this context.
- The court held the membership ordinance violated ICRA’s equal protection requirement because it treated similarly situated children differently solely based on whether the Pueblo parent was male or female.
- The court treated the due process claim as largely resolved by the equal protection analysis given the substantial interests affected by the discriminatory classification.

## Legal Principles

- ICRA’s command that no tribe exercising self-government may deny equal protection or due process applies to tribal governmental actions, including membership determinations, as construed by the Tenth Circuit.
- Tribal sovereignty is subject to congressional limits; where Congress imposes statutory rights on tribal governments, federal courts may enforce those limits as construed by the Tenth Circuit.
- A sex-based classification affecting significant political and property-related interests must be justified by tribal interests with a sufficient connection to the differential treatment; treating children differently solely because the member-parent is female violates ICRA equal protection under the court’s analysis.
- Deference to tribal self-government does not permit arbitrary discrimination based on sex when Congress has imposed equal-protection constraints through ICRA.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit concluded that ICRA authorized federal adjudication of the challenge and that the Santa Clara Pueblo’s membership ordinance denied equal protection by granting membership to children of male members who married nonmembers while excluding children of similarly situated female members, warranting reversal and remand.


Martinez v. Santa Clara Pueblo, 540 F.2d 1039 (10th Cir. 1976)