Coeur d' Alene Tribe v. Johnson
162 Idaho 754
| Idaho | 2017Background
- Kenneth and Donna Johnson (non-tribal members) own riverbank property within the Coeur d’Alene Reservation and constructed a dock and pilings extending into the St. Joe River.
- The Coeur d’Alene Tribe required a permit for docks; after the Johnsons did not obtain one or remove the dock, the Tribe sued in Tribal Court, the Johnsons did not appear, and the Tribal Court entered default judgment (civil penalty $17,400 and a declaration permitting removal of the dock).
- The Tribe petitioned an Idaho district court (Benewah County) to recognize and enforce the Tribal Court judgment under Idaho’s Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act; the district court recognized and enforced the judgment.
- The Johnsons appealed, arguing (a) tribal courts are not entitled to full faith and credit under 28 U.S.C. § 1738, (b) the Tribal Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the land allegedly lay above the 1873 high-water mark, and (c) the Tribal Court proceedings were biased (violating due process); they also invoked the penal law rule against enforcing foreign penal fines.
- The Idaho Supreme Court (1) overruled Sheppard to the extent it held tribal judgments receive full faith and credit under § 1738 and adopted the Ninth Circuit’s comity-based approach, (2) held the Tribal Court had subject-matter jurisdiction and the Johnsons received due process, but (3) held the civil-penalty portion of the Tribal judgment is barred by the penal law rule while the declaration permitting removal may be recognized and enforced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tribe) | Defendant's Argument (Johnsons) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tribal judgments are entitled to full faith and credit under 28 U.S.C. § 1738 | Sheppard supports treating tribes as "Territories or Possessions" under § 1738 so tribal judgments get full faith and credit | Sheppard should be overruled; § 1738 does not reach tribes and recognition should rest on comity (Wilson) | Overruled Sheppard on this point; tribal judgments are not automatically entitled to § 1738 full faith and credit and are recognized/enforced under comity principles (adopting Wilson) |
| Whether the Tribal Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the Johnsons and the dock | Tribe: submerged lands of the lake and St. Joe River within the Reservation belong to the Tribe, and nonmember regulation is allowed where conduct affects tribal political integrity, economic security, or welfare (Montana exception) | Johnsons: dock lies above 1873 high-water mark so not tribal land; Montana prevents jurisdiction over nonmembers on fee land | Johnsons failed to prove they own the submerged lands; Tribal Court had subject-matter jurisdiction under Montana’s second exception (ownership dispositive; no competing state interest) |
| Whether the Johnsons were denied due process (bias, lack of meaningful hearing) | Tribal procedures afforded notice and opportunity to be heard; ICWA/ICRA protections and precedents disfavor blanket bias claims | Tribal Court dominated by Tribe; bias rendered default judgment invalid and denied meaningful opportunity | Johnsons had adequate notice and opportunity; allegations of bias insufficient — due process satisfied for comity recognition |
| Whether the penal law rule bars recognition/enforcement of the civil penalty assessed by the Tribal Court | Tribe: judgment should be enforced in full | Johnsons: penal law rule prohibits enforcement of another jurisdiction’s penal or public-law fines | Penal law rule prevents enforcing the $17,400 civil penalty as a foreign penal sanction; declaratory/possession-removal relief may be recognized and enforced |
Key Cases Cited
- Sheppard v. Sheppard, 655 P.2d 895 (Idaho 1982) (earlier Idaho decision treating tribes as covered by § 1738; overruled in part)
- Wilson v. Marchington, 127 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 1997) (tribal judgments recognized under comity; lists defenses and due-process considerations)
- National Farmers Union Ins. Co. v. Crow Tribe, 471 U.S. 845 (U.S. 1985) (discusses exhaustion of tribal remedies and tribal self-government)
- Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1981) (limits tribal civil jurisdiction over nonmembers; two exceptions stated)
- Idaho v. United States, 533 U.S. 262 (U.S. 2001) (Supreme Court decision regarding inclusion of submerged lands within Coeur d’Alene Reservation)
- Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (U.S. 2001) (land ownership is a significant factor in Montana analysis)
- Water Wheel Camp Recreational Area, Inc. v. LaRance, 642 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2011) (where activity occurred on tribal land with no competing state interests, ownership alone can support tribal jurisdiction)
- The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66 (U.S. 1825) (articulates the penal law rule that courts do not execute foreign penal laws)
- Huntington v. Atrill, 146 U.S. 657 (U.S. 1892) (test for whether a law is penal versus private)