Here:
tribal court jurisdiction over nonmembers
Jensen v. EXC Cert Petition
Here:
Questions presented:
1. Whether federal courts are free to ignore congressionally confirmed Indian treaty rights that impliedly reserve tribal jurisdiction over nonmember conduct within an Indian reservation, thereby effecting an impermissible judicial abrogation of those treaty rights.
2. Whether federal courts may disregard the Supreme Court’s multifactor analysis for determining the status of a roadway existing on tribal trust land when deciding if an Indian tribe has inherent sovereign jurisdiction to adjudicate a collision occurring on that roadway between a tribally regulated tour bus and a passenger vehicle carrying tribal members.3. Whether federal courts may decline to apply the consensual relationship exception of Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), because nonmember conduct occurred on land deemed to be the equivalent of non-Indian fee land, where (a) the Supreme Court has indicated that Montana’s consensual relationship exception can justify tribal jurisdiction over nonmember conduct occurring on non-Indian fee land or its equivalent, and (b) there exists a consensual relationship of the qualifying kind between the tribe and the nonmembers.
4. Whether federal courts may deny that an Indian tribe has inherent civil jurisdiction, pursuant to the second Montana exception, over nonmembers’ commercial touring of tribal lands that results in a fatal tour bus/auto collision where (a) the nonmembers’ conduct implicates the tribe’s interests in governing itself, controlling internal relations, and superintending land use, and (b) the impact of the commercial touring activity, unconstrained by tribal regulatory authority, is demonstrably serious and imperils the tribe’s sovereign interests.
Lower court materials here.
Dollar General v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians Background Materials
In anticipation of the briefing of Dollar General v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, the Supreme Court’s next foray in tribal civil jurisdiction, we provide some background materials on the cases and tribal civil jurisdiction in general.
Eighth Circuit Decides Two Tribal Court Jurisdiction Matters Today
In both cases, the court concluded that the tribal courts did not have jurisdiction over tort claims brought against public schools in tribal court.
Here is the opinion in Belcourt Public School District v. Davis. Briefs are here.
Here is the opinion in Fort Yates Public School District No. 4 v. Murphy. Briefs are here.
Materials (so far) in FMC v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Tribal Court Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Tribal Judgment)
Native American Telecom (Crow Creek Sioux) Contract Breach Claims against Sprint Allowed to Proceed
Here are the materials in Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Crow Creek Sioux Tribal Court (D. S.D.):
190 Native American Telecom Opposition
We have posted on this case before:
- on tribal court jurisdiction in 2010
- on the denial of an injunction against Sprint in 2011
- A related case against the tribal court again
LA Times: “Tribes legally evicted Colorado River reservation tenant, judge rules”
Federal Court Rejects Nonmember’s Challenge to Colorado River Indian Tribe’s Jurisdiction; Reservation Boundaries Challenge Unresolved
Here is the order in French v. Starr (D. Ariz.):
An excerpt:
Finding no impediment to this Court’s application of the doctrine of estoppel against Plaintiff, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is precluded by the terms of the Permit and by his conduct from asserting to this Court in the instant federal action that the lot he leased from CRIT was not within the boundaries of the Reservation to resist a determination that the Tribal Court had jurisdiction over the action brought by CRIT to evict Plaintiff and for damages. See Wendt, 2003 WL 21750676, at *5. The Court would also conclude that the Tribal Court properly applied the doctrine of estoppel to find its own jurisdiction in the underlying action, even though the lot may or may not be within the boundaries of the Reservation. The equitable considerations raised in this dispute— most notably, the policy of promoting tribal self-government and the development of tribal courts, see Iowa Mut. Ins. Co., 480 U.S. at 16-17, the recognition of a tribe’s inherent authority to exclude, see Water Wheel, 642 F.3d at 812-13, and the recognition of the government’s role as trustee of reservation land on behalf of the tribes, see Ruby, 588 F.2d at 704-05—weigh in favor of the Tribal Court’s application of the doctrine of estoppel to determine its jurisdiction in this matter.
And:
In concluding that this Plaintiff is estopped from asserting that the lot he leased from CRIT was not within the Reservation, the Court recognizes that the issue of the location of the Reservation’s boundary remains unresolved. Defendants rightly point out that, in the absence of estoppel, Plaintiff would have to overcome other obstacles in challenging CRIT’s title to the lot—none of which the Court need examine here— including whether the statute of limitations period has run on a challenge to the location of the Reservation’s boundary, whether the Secretary’s determination of the Reservation’s boundary is subject to collateral attack, and whether the United States and CRIT are indispensable parties to such a challenge under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19.
Briefs are here.
News coverage here.
Sprint Communications Sues Oglala Sioux Tribe and Tribal Court over Utility Registration Fees
Here are the materials in Sprint Communications Co. LP v. Wynne (D. S.D.):
Big Legal Battle Brewing over Colorado River Indian Tribes California-Side Reservation
From the L.A. Times, here is “Holdouts, tribes clash over border of Colorado River reservation.”
The materials so far in French v. Starr (D. Ariz.):
54 Tribal Motion for Summary J
76 French Response to US Amicus
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.