Banishing habeas jurisdiction: why federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear tribal banishment actions

Some federal courts assert habeas jurisdiction to review tribal banishment actions alleged to violate the Indian Civil Rights Act, but not over disenrollment actions. This Comment argues that federal courts should not assert habeas jurisdiction over tribal banishment actions because exercising habeas jurisdiction over tribal banishment actions contravenes federal Indian law canons of construction; expansive habeas jurisdiction disturbs the careful balance struck by Congress and the Court between individual rights and tribal sovereignty; declining jurisdiction protects tribes' sovereign authority to determine their own membership; and the line between banishment and disenrollment is arbitrary because tribes have authority to exclude nonmembers from tribal lands. Though it may leave a few individual tribal members without a remedy to challenge tribal banishment alleged to violate ICRA, such a uniform rule best protects tribal sovereignty, preserves congressional intent, and promotes robust tribal court systems.