Source: cases/42usc1983/f3d-934-1076-chemehuevi-indian-tribe-v-mcmahon.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_934/1076_01/index.html
An Indian tribe "may not sue under § 1983 to vindicate" a "sovereign right," such as its right to be free of state regulation and control.
Nor can the Tribe assert its members' individual rights as parens patriae in a § 1983 action.
We hold that the individual plaintiffs, but not the Tribe, can challenge the citations under § 1983.
The Tribe, however, cannot assert its sovereign rights under that statute.
Section 1983 allows any "person" to sue for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."
They have a cause of action under § 1983 against the defendants.
California cannot enforce state law that regulates-but does not prohibit-tribal members' conduct inside a reservation.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash1 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f3d/934/1076-01 name Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. McMahon cite 934 F.3d 1076 (2019) court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit date 2019-08-19 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_934/1076_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl sha1=d3c32a2ead3da5ccc08143b49146f418d251ab58 chars=15873 opinion maj : panel by Hurwitz @0..15873 controlling party tribe : Chemehuevi Indian Tribe (plaintiff) party members : four enrolled tribal members cited by deputies (Bunim, Sansoucie, Ochoa, Lopez) count sovereign : Tribe's claim to be free of state regulatory jurisdiction on its reservation count citations : individual members' claims arising from traffic stops, citations and vehicle impoundments in Indian country theory communal : a tribe may not use § 1983 to vindicate sovereign or communal rights, nor sue parens patriae for its members theory individual : tribal members may use § 1983 to vindicate individual rights law 42usc1983 role applied posture civil; Indian tribe and four tribal members sued county sheriff and deputies under § 1983 over state regulatory traffic citations issued on the reservation; district court granted summary judgment for defendants (Section 36 not Indian country; no claim cognizable under § 1983); CA9 held Section 36 is Indian country, vacated and remanded as to the individuals, affirmed as to the Tribe result mixed element person : not-satisfied [law] route plaintiff-as-person pattern Indian tribe suing county officers to vindicate its freedom from state regulation on the reservation, and as parens patriae for its members party tribe count sovereign theory communal rule @13465..13603 | An Indian tribe "may not sue under § 1983 to vindicate" a "sovereign right," such as its right to be free of state regulation and control. rule @13649..13742 | Nor can the Tribe assert its members' individual rights as parens patriae in a § 1983 action. held @853..953 | We hold that the individual plaintiffs, but not the Tribe, can challenge the citations under § 1983. held @14458..14532 | The Tribe, however, cannot assert its sovereign rights under that statute. gloss An Indian tribe cannot sue under § 1983 to vindicate sovereign or quasi-sovereign rights against state regulatory authority (Inyo County), and cannot proceed parens patriae. element person : satisfied [law] route plaintiff-as-person pattern enrolled tribal members personally stopped, cited and (some) deprived of their vehicles by county deputies on the reservation party members count citations theory individual fact @13156..13252 [supports] | Each was stopped and detained by a San Bernardino County Deputy; some had their vehicles seized. fact @1544..1610 [supports] | Sindelar impounded Bunim's car, leaving her alone on the roadside. rule @12270..12410 | Section 1983 allows any "person" to sue for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." held @13350..13414 | They have a cause of action under § 1983 against the defendants. gloss Individual tribal members may bring "traditional" § 1983 suits to vindicate individual rights; the court decides only that the claims are cognizable, not that they succeed. element deprivation : not-reached party members count citations rule @11708..11826 | California cannot enforce state law that regulates-but does not prohibit-tribal members' conduct inside a reservation. gloss The panel decides the predicate question that all four citations were issued in Indian country (Section 36 is within the reservation; 18 U.S.C. § 1151(a)) and that the claims are cognizable, then vacates and remands; it does not itself hold that any right secured by the Constitution or laws was violated, and takes no position on defenses including immunity. ? other: the Indian-country ruling is this opinion's main merits holding but it construes 18 U.S.C. § 1151, not an element of § 1983; recorded here only as context for the unreached deprivation element