In the case of Nevada, et al. v. Floyd Hicks, et al., 2000, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that tribal courts do not have jurisdiction over civil suits against state officials who are executing search warrants for off-reservation crimes on reservation land. The case arose when two game wardens entered Native American Floyd Hicks' property in order to investigate a possible violation of state law regarding hunting and fishing rights outside the reservation boundaries. They did so without his consent or a warrant from either a tribal or state court. In response, Hicks sued them in Tribal Court for trespassing among other claims under federal and tribal law. The Supreme Court held that while tribes retain elements of "quasi-sovereign authority" after their incorporation within the United States territory, they cannot interfere with an overriding national interest such as enforcing criminal laws against non-Indians even if it involves actions taken on Indian reservations.

In the dissenting opinion for Nevada, et al. v. Floyd Hicks, et al., Justice Ginsburg argued that tribal courts should have jurisdiction over civil matters involving non-tribal members on reservation land. She contended that the majority's decision undermined tribal self-government and ignored precedent recognizing inherent sovereignty of tribes over their lands. She also pointed out that state law enforcement officers were not immune from lawsuits in federal or state court when they violated constitutional rights; therefore, it was inconsistent to grant them immunity in tribal courts for actions taken on reservations. Furthermore, she disagreed with the majority’s view about exhaustion of remedies principle as a discretionary doctrine rather than a mandatory rule.