Sharon Nunn has published “Correcting Nevada v. Hicks: Recognizing Tribal Courts as Courts of General Subject-Matter Jurisdiction” in the Yale Law Journal.

Here is the abstract:

This Note challenges the Supreme Court’s conclusion in Nevada v. Hicks that tribal courts are not courts of general subject-matter jurisdiction. Tribal courts satisfy the definition of general subject-matter jurisdiction courts: they are primary courts created by nonfederal sovereigns to hear a broad range of cases under their laws. Unlike previous scholarship, this analysis does not premise jurisdiction on near-perfect parity between tribal and state sovereignty, but focuses instead on tribal courts’ function in our federalist system. Recognizing tribal courts as general-jurisdiction courts would affirm tribal sovereignty and enable tribes to hear federal claims critical to self-governance.