Two kinds of rights
When Apache peoples sought justice in the twentieth century, they were asking for two things that are related but not identical. One was equal treatment as individuals: the right to vote, to use courts, to receive public services and to be free from discrimination. The other was recognition of tribal nations as governments with their own authority and lands. These goals sometimes reinforced each other and sometimes pulled in different directions.
The Apache peoples are separate nations, and this article tries to name particular communities only where the record supports it. Many cases and laws described below affected Native people across the country, with effects on Apache communities that varied by state and reservation.
Citizenship that did not guarantee a vote
In 1924, Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act, recognizing as citizens Native people born in the United States who were not already citizens. Citizenship did not end federal supervision of reservations or automatically secure voting rights. Voting qualifications were set largely by states, and in the Southwest several states found ways to keep Native residents from the polls.
Arizona is the clearest example affecting Western Apache communities. In 1928 the Arizona Supreme Court, in Porter v. Hall, held that Native people living on reservations were under federal guardianship and therefore ineligible to vote under the state constitution. That interpretation stood for two decades. In 1948 the same court, in Harrison v. Laveen, reversed course and ruled that reservation residents could not be denied the vote on that basis.
New Mexico, home to the Mescalero Apache and Jicarilla Apache communities, had similar restrictions. In 1948 a federal court in Trujillo v. Garley found that excluding Native citizens from voting was unlawful. These decisions came after World War II, when veterans and civil rights advocates pushed hard against the denial of rights to those who had served.
Even after these rulings, obstacles persisted: local registration practices, literacy requirements, distance from polling places and language barriers. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and its later amendments, including provisions for language assistance, addressed some of these problems. Readers should not assume that every problem disappeared at once, since enforcement and local practices varied.
Service, citizenship and fairness
Native Americans served in both World Wars, and Apache people were among them. Questions about whether those who served were treated equally on their return became part of the argument for voting rights in the 1940s. Individual military histories are not covered here; they are best learned from community and archival sources, including the records on Apache veterans from the World Wars.
Courts, guardianship and the individual
For much of the first half of the century, many aspects of Native life remained under the control of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, including the management of individual trust property and leases. This often meant that people lacked an ordinary legal voice in decisions about land and money. Over time, litigation and legislation gradually clarified rights. The role of Congress and the courts in deciding Native legal status is a recurring theme, and the Indian Claims Commission was one example of a forum created because tribes had no ordinary path to sue the government.
The Indian Civil Rights Act and its tensions
The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 required tribal governments to respect a list of individual protections similar to parts of the Bill of Rights, including due process, equal protection and free speech. It was a response to concerns that individuals could be treated unfairly by tribal governments, and it was also shaped by tribal leaders who argued that tribes should keep control over their own affairs.
The Supreme Court later held, in Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (1978), that federal courts generally could not review most claims under the act, leaving enforcement mainly to tribal forums. This put weight on tribal courts and councils to protect individual rights. It also shows the persistent tension between individual rights and tribal sovereignty, which Apache nations, like others, have had to work through in their own institutions.
Cases about tribal authority
The pursuit of justice also meant defending tribal powers in court. Several Supreme Court decisions of the 1970s and 1980s involved Apache nations. In Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones (1973), the Court dealt with a state’s ability to tax a tribal ski resort operating off the reservation. In Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe (1982), it upheld the tribe’s authority to impose a severance tax on oil and gas extracted from its lands, and in New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe (1983), it addressed the relationship between tribal and state authority over hunting and fishing on the reservation. These cases are often cited in broader discussions of Apache sovereignty court cases. Their reasoning is technical, and the outcomes were mixed rather than uniformly favorable for tribes.
Child welfare and family rights
Another form of justice concerned families. Large numbers of Native children were removed from their homes and placed with non-Native families or institutions in the mid-twentieth century. The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 set standards for such proceedings and gave tribes a role in them. Apache nations, like other tribes, use the law to take part in cases involving their children. The law has itself been subject to legal challenges, and the details of current litigation are best checked in up-to-date sources.
Education and equal opportunity
Civil rights also had an educational dimension. The experience of boarding schools and underfunded schools left a lasting mark, and efforts to improve schooling and secure equal opportunity were a regular feature of Apache community advocacy through the late twentieth century.
A continuing effort
The pursuit of justice is not confined to the past. Voting access, jurisdiction over crimes on reservations, policing, health care and protection of sacred places are all subjects of continuing discussion. For information about current tribal courts, voting arrangements and legal positions, consult the official websites of the nations themselves. This site is independent and does not speak for any Apache nation.