786 F.3d 662
8th Cir.2015Background
- Belcourt Public School District (School District), a North Dakota political subdivision, operates Grant High School on the Turtle Mountain Reservation and entered into 2006 and 2009 "Plans of Operations" with the Tribe assigning the District day-to-day administration and staff supervision.
- Several tribal members sued the School District and employees in Turtle Mountain Tribal Court asserting defamation, excessive force, and employment-related claims arising from official school duties.
- Tribal Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under Nevada v. Hicks; the Tribal Court of Appeals reversed, relying in part on the Plans of Operations as consent to tribal jurisdiction.
- The School District and employees sued in federal court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that the Tribal Court lacks jurisdiction; they also moved for default judgment in one action (Nelson) for defendants' alleged failure to defend.
- The district court denied default judgment and denied summary judgment, holding the Tribal Court had jurisdiction (rejecting application of Montana or finding Plans of Operations sufficient). The appellate court reverses jurisdiction ruling and affirms denial of default judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tribal Court has jurisdiction over nonmember School District/employees | Tribal Court lacks jurisdiction under Montana; School District acted as a state political subdivision performing governmental duties | Tribal Court has jurisdiction based on Plans of Operations (consensual relationship) and alleged harms to tribal welfare | Tribal Court lacked jurisdiction; neither Montana exception applies; reversal of district court on jurisdiction |
| Whether the Plans of Operations constitute a "consensual relationship" under Montana exception one | Contracts do not subject governmental actors to tribal adjudication when acting in official capacity | Plans of Operations are contracts that amount to consent to tribal jurisdiction | Plans of Operations do not satisfy first Montana exception; government–government contracts are not the private consensual relationships Montana contemplates |
| Whether conduct implicates second Montana exception (threat to tribal political integrity/economic security/health/welfare) | Employment and related tort claims affect tribal welfare and thus fall within exception | Alleged harms do not "imperil the subsistence" or threaten tribal self-government to the high threshold required | Second Montana exception inapplicable; allegations do not meet elevated threshold (no catastrophic or subsistence-level threat) |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying default judgment in Nelson | Default was appropriate due to defendants' failure to defend | Default judgments are disfavored; court should decide on merits; jurisdictional issues centrally pending | Denial of default judgment affirmed; court did not abuse discretion given preference for adjudication on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001) (limits tribal adjudicative power over state officers and clarifies Montana's first exception)
- Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981) (establishes general rule and two narrow exceptions for tribal jurisdiction over nonmembers)
- Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 316 (2008) (narrows second Montana exception; requires conduct to imperil tribal subsistence)
- Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997) (tribal adjudicative jurisdiction over nonmembers cannot exceed legislative/regulatory power)
- Atkinson Trading Co., Inc. v. Shirley, 532 U.S. 645 (2001) (tribal court jurisdiction must derive from retained or inherent sovereignty)