This appeal is from the dismissal of an action brought to invalidate an Indian tribal election held to amend the tribal constitution and bylaws and to poll the tribal membership for its collective opinion as to disposition of certain pending tribal claim awards. The District Court, The Honorable Gunnar H. Nordbye, in an unpublished opinion, dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.

Appellants, Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council, a Minnesota corporation comprised of enrolled members of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe residing in the St. Paul-Minneapolis, Minnesota area rather than on tribal land and certain individual members of the tribe residing in various parts of Minnesota, hereafter called plaintiffs, brought this action against appellees, the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, a federal corporation organized under § 17 of the Act of June 18, 1934, 48 Stat. 988, 25 U.S.C.A. § 477, 25 F.C.A. § 477, and the Secretary of the Interior, hereafter called Secretary, or, collectively, defendants.

Plaintiffs' complaint alleged that defendants did not comply with the applicable statute, rules and regulations prescribing timely notice of the election and that an alleged majority of the votes cast favored the proposed change in the constitution and bylaws; that the Secretary acted "unjustly and wrongfully in conducting and regulating the election so as to insure a vote of thirty per cent of those entitled to vote"; that a request for a hearing before the Secretary has been denied contrary to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1009(a) (c); and that such denial violates plaintiffs' constitutional rights of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment as well as their rights as citizens to vote under the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution.1 Additionally, plaintiffs contend that the tribal voting list prepared by defendants and used in the challenged election excluded a number of Indians eligible to vote in the referendum.

Plaintiffs maintain that the District Court had jurisdiction (1) under § 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S. C.A. § 476, 25 F.C.A. § 476; (2) under § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1009(a) (c), 5 F.C.A. § 1009 (a) (c); and (3) under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

Plaintiffs first assert that the District Court had jurisdiction by virtue of § 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C.A. § 476, 25 F.C.A. § 476.2 This argument is unacceptable, as a close reading of that Act reveals its limited scope. The Act merely provides the authority and procedures whereby an Indian tribe may organize itself and adopt a tribal constitution and bylaws. The Act makes no mention of jurisdiction in any sense and such is not within its purview. However, plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to a judicial interpretation of the Act, thus invoking jurisdiction below under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331, 28 F.C.A. § 1331.3 This argument overlooks defendant Minnesota Chippewa Tribe's sovereign immunity, protecting it from suit in the federal courts. Indian tribes under the tutelage of the United States are not subject to suit without the consent of Congress, United States v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 309 U.S. 506, 60 S. Ct. 653, 84 L. Ed. 894 (1940); Iron Crow v. Oglala Sioux Tribe of Pine Ridge Res., 231 F.2d 89 (8th Cir. 1956), and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331, 28 F.C.A. § 1331, does not operate to waive sovereign immunity. Anderson v. United States, 229 F.2d 675 (5th Cir. 1956).4 Neither can this suit be maintained against the Department of the Interior, or its agents acting pursuant to valid authorization, without congressional authorization. State of Oregon v. Hitchcock, 202 U.S. 60, 26 S. Ct. 568, 50 L. Ed. 935 (1906); Naganab v. Hitchcock, 202 U.S. 473, 26 S. Ct. 667, 50 L. Ed. 1113 (1906); Cf. United States ex rel. Nez Perce Tribe of Indians v. Seaton, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 202, 257 F.2d 206 (1958).

Also, before a District Court can exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S. C.A. § 1331, 28 F.C.A. § 1331, the issue to be considered must present a "federal question" — must arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Before jurisdiction exists, a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an essential element of plaintiff's cause of action. Gully v. First Natl. Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112, 57 S. Ct. 96, 81 L. Ed. 70 (1936); Stanturf v. Sipes, 335 F.2d 224 (8th Cir. 1964). In the instant case, plaintiffs argue that their rights in the tribal property were diluted as a result of the alleged invalid election. Plaintiffs' rights to the tribal property arise out of their membership in the Chippewa Tribe of Indians, rather than the Constitution or laws of the United States. See Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe, 249 F.2d 915 (10th Cir. 1957). Thus, for the lack of existence of a "federal question," the very basis of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331, 28 F.C.A. § 1331, jurisdiction could not be founded on that section. Stanturf v. Sipes, supra.

Secondly, plaintiffs assert that the District Court has jurisdiction over the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior by virtue of § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1009, 5 F.C.A. § 1009.5 The alleged "agency action" is assertedly found in 25 U.S.C.A. § 476, 25 F.C.A. § 476, which provides in part as follows: "Amendments to the constitution and bylaws may be ratified and approved by the Secretary * * *." (Emphasis supplied.) This reliance on § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act to establish jurisdiction below is misplaced. Section 10 of the Act does not confer jurisdiction upon the federal courts. Its purpose is to define the procedures and manner of judicial review of agency action rather than confer jurisdiction. Ove Gustavsson Contr. Co. v. Floete, 278 F.2d 912, 914 (2nd Cir. 1960); Barnes v. United States, supra. Additionally, § 10 does not in itself amount to congressional consent to a suit against defendants, whose right to assert the defense of sovereign immunity is discussed above. Chournos v. United States, 335 F.2d 918 (10th Cir. 1964).

Also, the "agency action" complained of here is discretionary, thus expressly beyond the purview of § 10 of the Act. The Secretary may (as opposed to shall or must) ratify and approve amendments to the tribal constitution and bylaws. Such discretionary action is not subject to review. See Hamel v. Nelson, 226 F. Supp. 96 (N.D.Cal.1963) and cases cited therein.

Lastly, plaintiffs assert that defendants' actions have deprived plaintiffs of rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This argument ignores one of the most basic tenets of American constitutional law. The guarantees of the Due Process Clause relate solely to action by a state government, Rice v. Sioux City Memorial Park Cemetery, 349 U.S. 70, 75 S. Ct. 614, 99 L. Ed. 897 (1955); Watkins v. Oaklawn Jockey Club, 183 F.2d 440 (8th Cir. 1950), and have no application to actions of Indian tribes, acting as such. See Barta v. Oglala Sioux Tribe of Pine Ridge Res., 259 F.2d 553 (8th Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 932, 79 S. Ct. 320, 3 L. Ed. 2d 304 (1959). Here, neither the State of Minnesota nor any other state acted in any wise to affect plaintiffs. All plaintiffs' complaints are directed toward the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, a federal corporation, and the agents of the United States Department of the Interior.

Similar reasoning precludes granting plaintiffs relief under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Fifth Amendment imposes restraints only on the federal government. Koch v. Zuieback, 316 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1963).

It has long been established that Indian tribes, while engaged in the processes of local government, are not subject to the Fifth Amendment. Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376, 16 S. Ct. 986, 41 L. Ed. 196 (1896); Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe, supra. The principal action complained of in the instant case was the tribal council's compilation of a tribal voting list in preparation for an upcoming referendum to amend the tribal constitution and bylaws. We can think of no better example of a tribe's local governmental procedure than that of regulating a tribal election amending the tribe's constitution and bylaws, the very framework of the local government. Cf Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe, 151 F. Supp. 476 (D.C.Col.1957), aff'd., 249 F.2d 915 (10th Cir. 1957), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 960, 78 S. Ct. 998, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1067 (1958). But cf. Colliflower v. Garland, 342 F.2d 369 (9th Cir. 1965).

Affirmed.