"The United States Supreme Court has issued its long-awaited decision in Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family & Cattle Co., Inc. and has declined to expand the jurisdiction of tribal courts over non-members. While tribes have expressed their disappointment with the decision, it is being welcomed by non-Indians doing business on lands located within tribal reservations.

The scope of tribal court jurisdiction has been the subject of a number of cases, including the land mark decision in Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 564. According to Montana, tribes generally do not have authority over non-Indians who come within the tribe's borders and have limited authority over activities of non-members, particularly when those activities occur on land owned in fee simple by non-Indians. There are two exceptions to the Montana rule. First, a tribe may regulate, through taxation, licensing or other means, the activities of nonmembers who enter into consensual relationships with the tribe or its members through commercial dealing, contracts, leases or other arrangements. Second, a tribe may exercise civil authority over the conduct of non-Indians on fee lands within the reservation when that conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security or the health or welfare of the tribe.

Plains Commerce Bank owned land in fee simple within the boundaries of the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation. The Longs, who are members of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, sued the bank in tribal court alleging that the bank discriminated against them when it sold the land to non-Indians instead of to the Longs. Over the bank's objection, the tribal court concluded that it had jurisdiction and, at the conclusion of a trial, awarded to the Longs damages plus interest. The court also partially nullified the bank's sale and gave the Longs an option to purchase the portion of the land that they still occupied. After the tribal court affirmed its award, the bank filed suit in federal court alleging that the tribal court lacked jurisdiction over the Longs' discrimination claim and that the tribal court's judgment was null and void. Both the federal district court and the Eighth Circuit disagreed with the bank and upheld the tribal court's award. The Supreme Court, however, thinks differently.

In short, the Supreme Court in Plains Commerce Bank ruled that the Cheyenne River Sioux court did not have jurisdiction because tribes do not have the right to regulate nonmember activities on fee land within a tribal reservation."

Get the Story:
United States: Supreme Court Holds The Line On Tribal Court Jurisdiction (Mondaq 7/2)

Supreme Court Decision:
Syllabus | Opinion [Roberts] | Dissent [Ginsburg]

Relevant Documents:
Oral Argument Transcript | Docket Sheet: No. 07-411 | Briefs on the Merits

Appeals Court Decision:
Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land and Cattle Company (June 26, 2007)

Lower Court Decision:
Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land and Cattle Company (July 18, 2006)

Related Stories:
Supreme Court reverses tribal jurisdiction ruling (6/25)
Supreme Court rulings awaited in Indian Country (6/24)
Ruling in Plains Commerce case expected by July (6/5)
Joe Martin: Tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians (5/1)
Opinion: Disrespect at the Supreme Court (4/28)
Supreme Court hears tribal jurisdiction case (4/15)
Legal Times: Italians and Indians at high court (4/15)
Supreme Court to hear jurisdiction case (4/14)
DOJ to join argument in tribal court jurisdiction case (4/3)
Bush brief backs tribal court jurisdiction (3/24)
Opinion: No tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians (3/3)
Supreme Court agrees to hear tribal jurisdiction case (1/8)
Appeals court upholds tribal verdict in bank loan case (6/28)
9th Circuit vacates tribal jurisdiction ruling (2/2)
Court subjects non-Indian bank to tribal laws (7/20)
Appeals court upholds tribal jurisdiction after rehearing (01/11)