Fort Yates Public School Dist. v. Jamie Murphy, 786 F.3d 653

School District operates on Standing Rock Reservation as a North Dakota political subdivision with constitutional duties to educate all state children.
In 2003 the District and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe formed a Joint Powers Agreement to operate K-12 education on the Reservation, with shared governance and joint property, while preserving each party's sovereignty and immunities.
Jamie Murphy filed a Tribal Court action on behalf of C.M.B. against the District claiming failure to provide a safe environment, negligent hiring/training, violation of a Tribal Court order, and failing to restrain a violent student.
The Tribe's Tribal Court denied a defense motion and asserted jurisdiction; the School District filed this federal case seeking a declaration that the Tribal Court lacked jurisdiction and an injunction against prosecuting the Tribal Court action.
The district court initially dismissed the Tribal Court on sovereign immunity grounds, then remanded or reconsidered; Murphy and the Tribal Court argued exhaustion and joinder issues, and the case proceeded in federal court on jurisdictional questions.
The court ultimately held that the Tribal Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Murphy's claims and that tribal sovereign immunity barred the District's suit for injunctive/declaratory relief; the district court’s exhaustion ruling was addressed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tribal Court has jurisdiction over Murphy's claims against the District	School District argues Montana exceptions do not apply	Murphy argues Tribal Court has jurisdiction under Montana exceptions	Tribal Court lacks jurisdiction under both Montana exceptions
Whether tribal sovereign immunity bars the suit for injunctive and declaratory relief	District argues immunity does not bar relief	Tribe's immunity bars suit for injunctive/declaratory relief	Tribe sovereign immunity bars the District's suit for injunctive/declaratory relief
Whether exhaustion of tribal remedies was required	Generally must exhaust tribal remedies before federal review	Exhaustion required unless tribal court clearly lacks jurisdiction	exhaustion not required given lack of tribal jurisdiction
Whether Rule 12(b)(7) mootness/joinder issues affected the case	Murphy argued dismissal for lack of indispensable party	Court should consider Rule 19/joinder; tribal officials as indispensable parties	District court did not abuse discretion; Murphy's Rule 12(b)(7) issue moot due to dismissal on jurisdiction

Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1981) (inherent tribal jurisdiction generally does not extend to nonmembers; Montana exceptions are narrow)
Atkinson Trading Co. v. Shirley, 532 U.S. 645 (U.S. 2001) (framework for tribal inherent jurisdiction over nonmembers; Montana framework guides analysis)
Hicks v. Plains Commerce Bank, 533 U.S. 353 (U.S. 2001) (narrow interpretation of second Montana exception; nonmembers require direct tribal interest)
Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 316 (U.S. 2008) (second Montana exception limited; cannot imperil subsistence for nonmembers)
County of Lewis v. Allen, 163 F.3d 509 (9th Cir. 1998) (contractual agreements between government entities not 'consensual relationships' for Montana exception)
MacArthur v. San Juan County, 497 F.3d 1057 (10th Cir. 2007) (employment relationships between state subdivision and tribe members not private consensual relationships for Montana exception)
Evans v. Shoshone-Bannock Land Use Policy Comm'n, 736 F.3d 1298 (9th Cir. 2013) (illustrates limitations of second Montana exception)
Harmon Indus., Inc. v. Browner, 191 F.3d 894 (8th Cir. 1999) (sovereign immunity as threshold jurisdictional issue)