Coeur D'Alene Tribe v. Steve Hawks, 933 F.3d 1052

Background

The Coeur d’Alene Tribe owns submerged land in Lake Coeur d’Alene and the St. Joe River; Steve and Deanne Hawks (nonmembers) own riparian property and a boat garage on pilings extending into the river.
The Tribe sued the Hawks in tribal court (2016) for encroachment; Hawks were served, did not appear, and tribal court entered default judgment declaring the Tribe could remove encroachments (the Tribe abandoned enforcing a punitive fine).
The Tribe then filed in federal district court to recognize and enforce the tribal-court judgment against the nonmembers; Hawks moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The district court found that, although tribal jurisdiction over nonmembers implicates federal law, the Tribe’s complaint did not present a federal question on its face and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit considered whether an action by a tribe to enforce a tribal-court judgment against nonmembers raises a substantial federal question because recognition necessarily requires assessing the tribe’s authority under federal law.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides jurisdiction to enforce a tribal-court judgment against nonmembers	Tribe: enforcement requires showing tribal authority over nonmembers under federal law, so a federal question inheres in the complaint	Hawks: federal question arises only as a potential defense; complaint lacks a federal cause of action	Court: federal question inheres in the complaint; § 1331 jurisdiction exists and dismissal was erroneous
Whether the well-pleaded complaint rule bars jurisdiction when federal issues may arise as defenses	Tribe: Oneida/Nat’l Farmers principles mean federal law can be the basis of plaintiff’s claim, not merely a defense	Hawks: plaintiff cannot predicate jurisdiction on an anticipated defense	Court: where enforcing tribal judgment requires establishing federally-defined tribal authority, the federal issue is part of the plaintiff’s claim
Whether comity or recognition doctrines alone can supply federal jurisdiction	Tribe: recognition/discretion to domesticate tribal judgments involves federal rules of recognition	Hawks: comity is discretionary and cannot create federal-question jurisdiction	Court: comity does not create jurisdiction; jurisdiction arises because the Tribe must prove federally-defined sovereign authority
Scope of the holding—does every tribal v. nonmember suit invoke federal question jurisdiction?	Tribe sought broad jurisdiction	Hawks argued broad rule would overreach federal courts	Court: limited ruling—only applies where tribe seeks to enforce a tribal-court judgment against a nonmember (not all tribe v. nonmember disputes)

Key Cases Cited

Idaho v. United States, 533 U.S. 262 (establishing Tribe’s ownership of submerged lands at issue)
National Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845 (tribal-court jurisdiction over nonmembers presents a federal question)
Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661 (federal law can create the basis of a tribe’s possessory claim such that federal jurisdiction lies)
Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 316 (whether tribal court has adjudicative authority over nonmembers is a federal question)
Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (sensitive judgments required when exploring outer reaches of § 1331)
Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (well-pleaded complaint rule and substantial federal question analysis)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (party asserting federal jurisdiction bears burden)
United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (tribal sovereignty as inherent but subject to federal definition)
Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (factors for determining tribal jurisdiction over nonmembers)
Chilkat Indian Village v. Johnson, 870 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir.) (tribe enforcing ordinance against nonmembers can present federal question)
Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074 (9th Cir.) (same principle applied to tribe enforcing ordinance against nonmember)
Wilson v. Marchington, 127 F.3d 805 (9th Cir.) (recognition/enforcement of tribal judgments and consideration of tribal jurisdiction issues)