## Facts

- The Native Village of Venetie and the Native Village of Fort Yukon are predominantly Alaska Native communities with tribal courts, governed through I.R.A.-organized village councils.
- The villages’ tribal courts issued adoption decrees involving village residents, including an adoption formalized by the Fort Yukon tribal court in 1986.
- Alaska refused to recognize certain village tribal-court adoptions for state purposes; in one example, the State denied AFDC benefits after declining to accept the tribal adoption.
- The villages and individual residents sued Alaska and the state health and social services commissioner, alleging that the refusal to recognize tribal adoption decrees violated ICWA’s full faith and credit provision, 25 U.S.C. § 1911(d), and also violated constitutional rights.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Alaska, reasoning that the tribal courts had not followed required ICWA procedures, and it did not reach the constitutional claims.

## Issues

1. Whether ICWA § 1911(d) implies a private right of action permitting tribes and individual residents to sue a state to enforce the statute’s full faith and credit mandate for tribal child-custody determinations.
2. Whether the village councils and individual plaintiffs have standing (and are proper plaintiffs) to bring an action to enforce § 1911(d).
3. Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars claims for damages and/or permits prospective injunctive or declaratory relief against state officials to require compliance with § 1911(d).

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The court held that ICWA § 1911(d) implies a private right of action and that both the village councils and individual residents may sue to enforce the full faith and credit requirement.
- The court affirmed dismissal to the extent plaintiffs sought monetary damages against the State.
- The court reversed dismissal to the extent plaintiffs sought prospective injunctive or declaratory relief against the responsible state official and allowed those claims to proceed on remand.

## Legal Principles

- ICWA § 1911(d)’s command that states “shall” give full faith and credit to tribal child-custody proceedings supports an implied private right of action to enforce that mandate in federal court.
- Tribes (including I.R.A.-organized village governing bodies) and affected individual tribal members fall within the protected class and may sue to enforce § 1911(d).
- The Eleventh Amendment bars claims for money damages against a state, but plaintiffs may pursue prospective injunctive or declaratory relief against state officials for ongoing violations of federal law consistent with Ex parte Young.
- Claims seeking to compel state recognition of tribal child-custody determinations may proceed as requests for prospective compliance with federal law, while damages remedies are unavailable against the state.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that ICWA’s full faith and credit clause in § 1911(d) is enforceable through an implied private right of action brought by village councils and individual residents, but sovereign immunity bars monetary damages; the case was remanded for further proceedings on prospective declaratory or injunctive relief requiring state compliance.


Native Village of Venetie I.R.A. Council v. State of Alaska, 944 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1991)