Here is the opinion:
Based on these findings, we now conclude that the Plaintiffs’ action should not have been dismissed because the arbitral mechanism specified in the agreement is illusory. We also cannot accept the Loan Entities’ alternative argument for upholding the district court’s dismissal: that the loan documents require that any litigation be conducted by a tribal court on the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Reservation. As the Supreme Court has explained, most recently in Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 316 (2008), tribal courts have a unique, limited jurisdiction that does not extend generally to the regulation of nontribal members whose actions do not implicate the sovereignty of the tribe or the regulation of tribal lands. The Loan Entities have not established a colorable claim of tribal jurisdiction, and, therefore, exhaustion in tribal courts is not required. Accordingly, we cannot uphold the district court’s dismissal on this alternative basis.
Primary briefs here. Supplemental briefs here.
As should be expected by this time, payday lending in Indian country is creating bad law for tribal interests. This case involved a privately owned payday lending operation. Tribally-owned operations will be scrambling to distinguish themselves from this case. Particularly troublesome is the holding and (hopefully) dicta from the opinion that suggests tribal courts have no jurisdiction involving off-reservation lending operations, even though the operation is based in Indian country and even though the lending instrument includes a forum selection clause naming a tribal forum.
My initial recommendations to tribal leaders and counsel — shut down on-reservation-based payday lending operations operated privately immediately. My second recommendation is to ensure that tribal regulations of tribally owned payday lending operations are independent and robust. In other words, tribes must be able to withstand the kind of searching inquiry into their regulatory scheme that the federal court did in this case. Can tribal sovereign lenders say that?
Here is the opening brief in Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. State of Wisconsin:
7th Circuit FINAL Night Hunting Opening Brief
Lower court materials here.
Here:
Questions presented:
1) Whether Congress’ waiver of the federal government’s sovereign immunity, under § 313(a) of the CWA, for enforcement of local stormwater management ordinances, for “any property” over which it has “jurisdiction,” applies to land taken into trust pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 465.
2) Whether lands acquired by an Indian tribe pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 465, within its former reservation boundaries are, removed from state jurisdiction because, as the Seventh Circuit ruled, they are reclassified as “Indian Country.”
Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials in Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin v. Village of Hobart:
An excerpt from Judge Posner’s opinion:
Nevertheless we can imagine an argument, built on our earlier example of the Village’s authority to deploy its firefighters on Indian parcels, for an exception of necessity—a common law graft onto the Clean Water Act—to the Oneida tribe’s exclusive authority over Indian land. But the Village doesn’t argue for such an exception; it doesn’t deny the feasibility of cooperative arrangements between it and the tribe, which has signed cooperative service agreements with other government bodies in the area.
So Hobart loses its case against the tribe. And there is another reason it must lose. Because federal law forbids states and local authorities to tax Indian lands, the tribe can’t be forced to pay the assessment decreed by the challenged ordinance if the assessment is a tax.
Lower court materials here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.