This case arises out of a major forest fire (the Rodeo-Chediski fire) partially caused by Valinda Jo Elliott on White Mountain land (she started the Chediski part). The tribe sued her in tribal court for damages related to the fire. On her federal claim, she argued that the tribal court could not have jurisdiction over her. The Ninth Circuit’s holding was that tribal court jurisdiction was plausible (read: not entirely frivolous) and ordered her to exhaust tribal court remedies. As such, it appears the reason the Supreme Court would grant cert here is because four members of the Court believe it is time to either overrule or significantly undermine National Farmers Union and Iowa Mutual, the key cases in the tribal court exhaustion doctrine
Here is the petition — Elliott Cert Petition
The question presented:
Can a tribal court assert jurisdiction over a non-consenting non-Indian and force her to defend against civil claims in that unfamiliar forum when it is plain that the tribal court has neither regulatory nor adjudicatory jurisdiction and where the conduct at issue by the non-consenting non-Indian on tribal land does not and cannot ever threaten or directly effect the tribal political integrity, economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe?
The lower court materials are here.
Turtle Talk 
Note the Cert Petition’s repeated reference (4x – e.g. pp. 18-19) to the White Mountain court system as an “unfamiliar forum.” Is “unfamiliar” perchance a code word for inferior? Is Ms. Elliott perhaps intimately acquainted with the culture and practice dynamics of the U.S. federal court system? Isn’t that why we hire counsel? The petition only references tribal “economic security” three times.
You have many falsehoods in your, “Question”.
The tribal court has regulatory and adjudicatory jurisdiction on their land, which is where she was violating the ban on fires. After she illegally left her illegal fire burning, it consumed much of their forest. They were bringing in 60% of their income from this forest. Why would you write”…the conduct at issue by the non-consenting non-Indian on tribal land does not and cannot ever threaten or directly effect the tribal political integrity, economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe?”
Her illegal actions had, and continue to have, a crushing effect on the tribal political integrity, economic security, and the health and welfare of the tribe. This includes the many who were forced to move from this tribal land. Atleast they are use to it.