Term: 2007
Docket: 07-411
Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co.
- Pro
07-411 PLAINS COMMERCE BANK V. LONG FAMILY LAND & CATTLE DECISION BELOW: 491 F3d 878 EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE CERT. GRANTED 1/4/2008 QUESTION PRESENTED: Indian tribal courts inherently lack jurisdiction to hear claims between members and nonmembers. In Montana v. U.S., 450 U.S. 544, 565 (1981), this Court identified two narrow exceptions. The first relates to regulation of nonmembers who enter into consensual relationships with the tribe or its members. The second relates to civil authority concerning activity that directly affects the tribe’s political integrity, economic security, health, or welfare. This Court, however, has never upheld tribal- court, civil-adjudicatory jurisdiction over a nonmember defendant under the first Montana exception, and expressly left this question open in Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353, 360 (2001). The question presented is: Whether Indian tribal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims as an “other means” of regulating the conduct of a nonmember bank owning fee-land on a reservation that entered into a private commercial agreement with a member-owned corporation?¹ ¹Petitioner made two additional arguments to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that it is explicitly not asking this Court to review. Namely, that tribal courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate claims based on federal law and that the tribal court’s judgment should be denied comity because the Bank was denied due process. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 06-3093
The U.S. Supreme Court case Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., 2007, revolved around the jurisdiction of tribal courts over non-tribal entities. The dispute began when Plains Commerce Bank sold property that had been pledged as collateral by Long Family Land and Cattle Company, a business owned by members of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe but incorporated under South Dakota law. The company sued in tribal court alleging discriminatory practices in violation of tribal law during the sale process. The bank argued that as a non-tribal entity it was not subject to the jurisdiction of this court. The case reached the U.S Supreme Court which ruled in favor of Plains Commerce Bank with a 5–4 decision stating that while tribes have sovereign powers within their territory, these are subject to limitations imposed by Congress and do not extend to activities involving nonmembers off reservation land unless specific conditions apply; such conditions were found absent here hence limiting tribe's civil authority over nonmember conduct on fee lands (land owned outright). This ruling reinforced limits on legal jurisdiction exercised by Native American tribes over non-members.
The dissenting opinion in the case of Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., argued that the majority's decision was a significant departure from established precedent regarding tribal court jurisdiction over nonmembers. The dissent believed that this change would undermine tribal self-government and economic development, which are key goals of federal Indian policy. They contended that the bank had voluntarily entered into commercial relationships with members of the tribe on their reservation, thus should be subject to tribal jurisdiction for disputes arising out of those relationships. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Montana v. United States (1981), arguing it did not limit tribal civil authority over nonmembers as strictly as suggested by them but rather allowed tribes to regulate activities threatening their political integrity, economic security or health/welfare if these activities were connected to consensual relations between tribe and non-members.
