932 F.3d 1125
8th Cir.2019Background
- Four individual members of the MHA (Three Affiliated Tribes) sued non‑member oil and gas companies in MHA tribal court, alleging leases on allotted trust lands resulted in wasteful flaring and unpaid royalties.
- The leases were federal form BIA leases requiring Secretary of the Interior approval and referencing comprehensive federal regulation of leasing, royalties, and flaring.
- Tribal district court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; the MHA Nation Supreme Court affirmed tribal jurisdiction under Montana’s consensual‑relationships exception.
- Several oil and gas companies filed suit in federal court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin the tribal court plaintiffs and tribal court officials; the district court granted a preliminary injunction.
- The appeals raise (1) whether tribal sovereign immunity bars the federal suit against tribal officials, (2) whether defendants exhausted tribal remedies, and (3) whether the tribal court has jurisdiction over non‑member companies and federal‑law claims arising from oil and gas leases on allotted trust lands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sovereign immunity / Ex parte Young | Tribal court officials immune; suit barred by tribal sovereign immunity | Ex parte Young permits injunctive/declaratory suits against tribal officers exceeding lawful authority | Ex parte Young applies to tribal officers; suit not barred because companies seek only injunctive/declaratory relief and officials have sufficient connection to enforcement |
| Exhaustion of tribal remedies | Companies failed to fully develop factual record in tribal court; must exhaust | Companies challenged jurisdiction and appealed to MHA Supreme Court; facial challenge made factual development unnecessary | Exhaustion requirement satisfied because the jurisdictional challenge was facial and exhaustion would serve no purpose other than delay |
| Tribal court adjudicative jurisdiction over federal causes | Tribal courts may adjudicate these contract/royalty claims | Tribal courts lack authority to hear federal causes of action absent congressional authorization (per Hicks) | Tribal courts lack jurisdiction over federal causes of action here because federal law comprehensively governs leases/royalties |
| Montana exceptions / jurisdiction over non‑members | Consensual lease relationships suffice to support tribal jurisdiction | Federal control of leasing and royalty system means tribal regulation is not necessary to tribal self‑government; Montana exceptions do not apply | Montana exceptions (consensual‑relationship and special‑effects) do not apply; tribal court lacks legislative jurisdiction over non‑member companies |
Key Cases Cited
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (tribal sovereign immunity and tribal sovereignty principles)
- Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U.S. 782 (limits on tribal immunity re: Ex parte Young suits)
- Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (limits on tribal jurisdiction over nonmembers and two exceptions)
- Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (tribal courts not general federal‑law forums; limits on adjudicative jurisdiction)
- Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (tribal adjudicative/legislative jurisdiction principles for nonmembers)
- Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 316 (narrow reading of Montana exceptions)
- Atkinson Trading Co. v. Shirley, 532 U.S. 645 (limits on tribal regulatory reach under Montana)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (suits for injunctive/declaratory relief against officers for ongoing federal‑law violations)
- Iowa Mutual Insurance Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9 (tribal‑court exhaustion principle)
- National Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845 (exhaustion and respect for tribal self‑government)