936 F.3d 478
6th Cir.2019Background
- Joy Spurr, a non-Indian and nonmember, is the stepmother of Nathaniel Spurr, a member of the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi (NHBP). Nathaniel obtained an ex parte personal protection order (PPO) from the NHBP tribal court alleging stalking/harassment and the court later entered a permanent PPO.
- The tribal court found Spurr in civil contempt for violating the PPO and imposed attorney’s fees and a $250 court cost (or 25 hours community service).
- Spurr sued in federal district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against (1) Chief Judge Melissa Pope (waiver of immunity by the Band), (2) the NHBP Supreme Court, and (3) the Band. The district court limited briefing to sovereign immunity and subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The district court concluded federal-question jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 but held 18 U.S.C. § 2265(e) authorized the tribal court to issue the civil PPO and dismissed Spurr’s jurisdictional challenge.
- On appeal the Sixth Circuit addressed two threshold issues: (1) whether tribal sovereign immunity barred suits against the Band and the NHBP Supreme Court, and (2) whether federal law authorized tribal courts to issue civil protection orders against any person in Indian country (including non-Indian nonmembers like Spurr).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1331 abrogates tribal sovereign immunity and permits suit against the Band and the NHBP Supreme Court | § 1331’s grant of federal-question jurisdiction allows district courts to hear challenges to tribal-court jurisdiction and thus abrogates immunity | § 1331 does not unequivocally waive tribal sovereign immunity; immunity remains the baseline and must be expressly abrogated by Congress | Tribal sovereign immunity bars suits against the Band and the NHBP Supreme Court; § 1331 does not abrogate immunity |
| Whether 18 U.S.C. § 2265(e) grants tribal courts authority to issue and enforce civil protection orders against any person in Indian country | Spurr: § 2265’s scope does not apply to issuing PPOs against nonmembers here or alternatively the PPO is criminal in nature | Band: § 2265(e) unambiguously gives tribal courts full civil jurisdiction to issue and enforce protection orders involving any person in matters arising in the tribe’s Indian country | § 2265(e) unambiguously authorizes tribal courts to issue and enforce civil protection orders against any person in matters arising in the tribe’s Indian country |
| Whether the NHBP order was civil or criminal in nature | Spurr: the order’s language, penalties, and code headings indicate a criminal protection order | Band: NHBP Code authorizes civil protection orders for stalking; the tribal court cited § 2265 and imposed civil contempt sanctions (attorney fees) for violations | The order was a civil protection order; civil contempt and criminal penalties for violation do not convert its civil character |
| Whether 25 U.S.C. § 1304 (special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction) limits tribal authority to issue PPOs here | Spurr: § 1304 limits tribal jurisdiction over nonmembers to those with specific ties to the tribe, so tribal court lacked jurisdiction over her | Band: § 1304 concerns special criminal jurisdiction for domestic-violence-related offenses and violations of existing protection orders, not the civil authority granted by § 2265(e) to issue PPOs | § 1304 does not displace § 2265(e); § 1304 governs different subject matter (special criminal jurisdiction) and does not bar issuance of civil PPOs under § 2265(e) |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 572 U.S. 782 (2014) (tribal sovereign immunity is the baseline; Congress must unequivocally abrogate)
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978) (tribal sovereign immunity as common-law immunity)
- Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998) (no distinction between governmental and commercial tribal activities for immunity)
- Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981) (limits on tribal authority over nonmembers absent express congressional delegation)
- National Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845 (1985) (issues concerning tribal-court jurisdiction raise federal questions but do not by themselves abrogate immunity)
- Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak & Circle Village, 501 U.S. 775 (1991) (federal jurisdiction statutes do not necessarily abrogate sovereign immunity)
- Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001) (tribal authority and limits over nonmembers)
- Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997) (tribal authority over nonmembers is limited)
- United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004) (Congress’s plenary power over tribes and ability to alter tribal authority)