Morton v. Mancari

What happened

The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 accords an employment preference for qualified Indians in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Its overriding purpose was to help tribes assume a greater degree of self-government, both politically and economically. Congress was seeking to change a situation in which a mostly non-Indian BIA staff had plenary control over the lives of federally recognized Indians.

Non-Indian BIA employees sued. They said the preference contravened the anti-discrimination provisions of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, and deprived them of property rights without due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment. A three-judge District Court held that the preference was implicitly repealed by section 11 of the 1972 Act, which barred racial discrimination in most federal employment, and enjoined it.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, in an opinion by Justice Blackmun. It held that Congress did not intend to repeal the Indian preference. Shortly after the 1972 Act, Congress enacted new Indian preference laws in the Education Amendments of 1972. The Court called this "a prototypical case where an adjudication of repeal by implication is not appropriate."

It also rejected the constitutional claim. The preference, it said, is granted to Indians "not as a discrete racial group, but, rather, as members of quasi-sovereign tribal entities." As long as the special treatment can be tied rationally to the fulfillment of Congress's unique obligation toward Indians, such legislative judgments will not be disturbed. In Haaland v. Brackeen (2023), the Court cited Mancari for the point that principles inherent in the Constitution's structure may empower Congress to act in Indian affairs.

Summarized with AI assistance from 4 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error