Top News
Justices restrict Indian courts' jurisdiction
South Dakota case sets precedent of limiting Native courts from hearing cases involving nontribal members
del.icio.us
Digg
NewsVine
FarkWASHINGTON -- In a South Dakota case, the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday restricted the ability of Native American tribal courts to hear lawsuits involving nontribal members.
The 5-4 decision in favor of a South Dakota business -- Plains Commerce Bank -- came in a dispute involving the Long Family Land and Cattle Company, a Native-owned business on the Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation.
It was the first Supreme Court case involving Native law for the court's newest members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. Roberts wrote the majority opinion.
"This wasn't the outcome we were hoping for," said Virginia Davis, associate counsel with the National Congress of American Indians, who filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Longs during the trial. "We were very disappointed."
Generally, Native tribal courts cannot hear disputes between tribal members and nonmembers. One exception enables regulating nonmembers who enter agreements with tribes or their members.
In his opinion, Roberts ruled against the Longs, saying that the exception does not allow tribes to regulate the sale of non-Native land within a reservation.
"The Court's holding in this case was really very narrow," Davis said. "In our opinion, this case was more about predatory lending."
The Long company had deeded its land to the bank in exchange for canceling some debts, a promise of loans and an opportunity to repurchase the property after all of Long's debts were paid.
Most of the Long family's cattle perished in frigid winter weather in 1996-97, prompting the bank to initiate eviction proceedings when Long was unable to settle its debt.
Long sued in the Cheyenne River Sioux tribal court, where a jury awarded the Native-controlled company $750,000 plus interest, concluding the bank discriminated against the Longs based on their Native status.
In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the $750,000 jury award should have been allowed to stand. Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer joined Ginsburg.
The tribal court could not reinstate the Longs as owners of the ranch, but the court could hold the bank answerable for damages, Ginsburg wrote.
"If there is any silver lining to the Supreme Court's decision, it's that the court clearly recognized the importance of the tribal courts," Davis said. "Today's decision doesn't change that."
Davis said she could not comment on whether the Longs would pursue further legal action in the case, but she said the case could have far-reaching implications for tribal law.
"This is sort of a new direction for Indian law, and we're in the process of digesting what exactly this will mean," she said.
The opinions above are from readers of rapidcityjournal.com and in no way represent the views of the Rapid City Journal or Lee Enterprises.
Rapidcityjournal.com provides this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum. Our comment policy explains the rules of the road for registered commenters.
If you don't see your comment, perhaps...
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy