5.3 Civil Jurisdiction in Indian Country

Civil jurisdiction in Indian Country is a complex web of tribal, state, and federal authority. Tribes have inherent sovereignty to govern their territories, but this power is limited by Congress and the Supreme Court. Understanding these jurisdictional boundaries is crucial for resolving disputes and enforcing laws.

The Montana v. United States case set key rules for tribal jurisdiction over non-members. While tribes generally can't regulate non-members on non-Indian fee lands, exceptions exist for consensual relationships and activities directly affecting tribal interests. These principles shape civil authority in Indian Country.

Tribal Sovereignty and Jurisdiction

Inherent Tribal Sovereignty

Top images from around the web for Inherent Tribal Sovereignty

• 

  Tribal sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Tribal sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  What's tribal sovereignty and what does it mean for Native Americans? View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Tribal sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Tribal sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Inherent Tribal Sovereignty

• 

  Tribal sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Tribal sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  What's tribal sovereignty and what does it mean for Native Americans? View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Tribal sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Tribal sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Tribes are sovereign entities with the right to govern themselves and their territories
• Sovereignty is not granted by the federal government, but is an inherent right of tribes as pre-existing political entities
• Tribal sovereignty is subject to limitations imposed by Congress and the Supreme Court, but is still a fundamental principle of federal Indian law
• Tribes have the authority to establish their own form of government, create laws, and enforce those laws within their jurisdictions

Tribal Court Systems

• Tribes have the right to establish their own court systems to adjudicate disputes and enforce tribal laws
• Tribal courts have jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters occurring within the tribe's territory, involving tribal members
• Tribal court jurisdiction may extend to non-members in certain circumstances (consensual relationships, direct effect on tribal interests)
• The exhaustion doctrine requires that parties exhaust available remedies in tribal court before seeking relief in federal court (National Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe)

Tribal Regulatory Authority

• Tribes have the power to regulate activities within their territories, including zoning, environmental protection, and business licensing
• Tribal regulatory authority extends to both members and non-members engaging in activities on tribal lands
• In Williams v. Lee (1959), the Supreme Court held that state courts lack jurisdiction over civil suits against tribal members arising from transactions on the reservation, affirming tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction

State and Federal Jurisdiction

Public Law 280 and State Jurisdiction

• Public Law 280 (1953) granted certain states criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indian country, without tribal consent
• States with PL 280 jurisdiction: Alaska, California, Minnesota (except Red Lake Reservation), Nebraska, Oregon (except Warm Springs Reservation), and Wisconsin
• In non-PL 280 states, state courts generally lack jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters involving Indians in Indian country, unless Congress expressly grants such authority

Federal Court Jurisdiction

• Federal courts have jurisdiction over certain cases involving tribes and tribal members, based on federal question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331) or diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332)
• Federal question jurisdiction applies to cases arising under federal law, including treaties, statutes, and the Constitution
• Diversity jurisdiction applies to cases between citizens of different states or between a state and a foreign state, with a minimum amount in controversy of $75,000

Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction

• Personal jurisdiction refers to a court's power over the parties in a case, based on minimum contacts with the forum state (International Shoe Co. v. Washington)
• Subject matter jurisdiction refers to a court's authority to hear and decide cases based on the nature of the claim (federal question, diversity, etc.)
• In Indian country, personal and subject matter jurisdiction may be limited by tribal sovereignty and the exclusive jurisdiction of tribal courts in certain matters

Jurisdiction over Non-Members

Montana v. United States and the Montana Exceptions

• In Montana v. United States (1981), the Supreme Court held that tribes generally lack civil regulatory authority over non-members on non-Indian fee lands within reservations
• The Montana exceptions allow tribes to exercise jurisdiction over non-members when:
  1. The non-member enters into a consensual relationship with the tribe or its members (contracts, leases, etc.)
  2. The non-member's conduct threatens or directly affects the tribe's political integrity, economic security, or health and welfare

Non-Member Indians and Fee Lands

• Non-member Indians are subject to tribal criminal jurisdiction when they commit crimes on the reservation (Duro v. Reina, overturned by Congressional legislation)
• Fee lands are lands within a reservation owned by non-Indians or non-member Indians, often as a result of allotment policies
• Tribal jurisdiction over non-members on fee lands is limited by the Montana exceptions, requiring a consensual relationship or direct effect on tribal interests