Term: 2015
Docket: 13-1496
Dollar General Corporation v. Mississippi Band Of Choctaw Indians
- Pro
13-1496 DOLLAR GENERAL CORP. V. MS BAND OF CHOCTAW DECISION BELOW: 746 F.3d 167 CERT. GRANTED 6/15/2015 QUESTION PRESENTED: In Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 565 (1981), this Court held that generally "the inherent sovereign powers of an Indian tribe do not extend to the activities of nonmembers of the tribe." The Court recognized as an exception to that rule that a "tribe may regulate, through taxation, licensing, or other means, the activities of nonmembers who enter consensual relationships with the tribe or its members." Id. (emphasis added). The Court subsequently recognized in Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353, 358 n.2 (2001), that it has "never held that a tribal court had jurisdiction over a nonmember defendant" in any context, so that it remains an "open question" whether tribal courts may ever exercise civil jurisdiction over nonmembers. In Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 316 (2008), this Court granted certiorari to decide whether Montana's undefined "other means" include adjudicating civil tort claims in tribal court. However, the Court resolved the case on other grounds. In this case, a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit held that tribal courts do have that jurisdiction. Five judges dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc. The case accordingly presents the issue the Court left open in Hicks and the Question the Court granted certiorari to decide in Plains Commerce: Whether Indian tribal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims against nonmembers, including as a means of regulating the conduct of nonmembers who enter into consensual relationships with a tribe or its members? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-60668
In the case of Dollar General Corporation v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (2015), the U.S Supreme Court was asked to decide whether tribal courts have jurisdiction over civil tort claims against nonmembers, including as a means of regulating the activities of nonmembers who enter into consensual relationships with a tribe or its members. The dispute arose when a member of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians alleged that he had been sexually assaulted by an employee at a Dollar General store located on tribal land. The company argued that it could not be sued in tribal court because it is not part of the tribe and therefore falls under federal or state jurisdiction. However, both lower courts ruled in favor of allowing tribes to exercise their sovereign power over those who do business on their lands, even if they are not members themselves. The Supreme Court heard arguments but ultimately split 4-4 due to Justice Scalia's death earlier that year; this left intact an appeals court ruling which held that Indian tribes' own justice systems can hear cases against people from outside their communities operating businesses on Native American reservations.
In the case of Dollar General Corporation v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, a dissenting opinion was not issued as the Supreme Court reached a 4-4 tie in its decision. This deadlock effectively upheld the lower court's ruling that tribal courts have jurisdiction over civil tort claims against nonmembers, including corporations like Dollar General. The company had argued that it should only be subject to federal and state laws, not those of individual tribes. However, because there was no majority decision from the Supreme Court justices and thus no written majority opinion or dissenting opinion, we cannot provide further details on any justice's specific views or reasoning regarding this case.
