Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co.

Last updated
Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land and Cattle Co., Inc.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 14, 2008
Decided June 25, 2008
Full case namePlains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land and Cattle Co., Inc.
Docket no. 07-0411
Citations554 U.S. 316 ( more )
128 S. Ct. 2709; 171 L. Ed. 2d 457; 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5261
Case history
PriorSummary judgment granted to plaintiffs, 440 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (D.S.D. 2006); aff'd, 491 F. 3d 878 (8th Cir. 2007); cert. granted, 552 U.S. 1087 (2008)
Holding
A tribal court had no jurisdiction to hear a case on the sale of non-Indian fee land located on a reservation. Eighth Circuit reversed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy  · David Souter
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito; Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer (Part II)
Concur/dissentGinsburg, joined by Stevens, Souter, Breyer
Laws applied
25 U.S.C.   § 331, et seq.

Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land and Cattle Co., Inc., 554 U.S. 316 (2008), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that a tribal court had no jurisdiction to hear a case for discrimination against an Indian in the sale of non-Indian fee land located on a reservation. [1]

Contents

Background

History

Ronnie and Lila Long had a family run ranching operation located on the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation, and both were enrolled members of the Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Tribe. The Longs have had a series of business dealings with the Plains Commerce Bank, which was a non-Indian corporation located off of the reservation. Ronnie Long's father Kenneth Long, a non-Indian, had mortgaged a portion of the ranch to the bank and owed approximately $750,000 at the time of his death in 1995. Following a series of negotiations, the Longs deeded over 2,230 acres (9.0 km2) to the bank, which was then leased back to them, and were given a loan with an option to purchase the land at the end of the term. The bank had also agreed to provide loans for operating expenses, but failed to do so. [2]

Tribal Court Actions

Following a bad winter in which the Longs lost 500 head of cattle and were unable to pay the loan, the bank started eviction proceedings. The bank then sold the land in two parcels to non-Indians and the Longs sought an injunction in the Tribal Court to stop the eviction and reverse the sale. They also claimed that the bank had discriminated against them based on their tribal membership. The bank asserted that the Tribal Court lacked jurisdiction. The Tribal Court found that it had jurisdiction and found for the Longs. The bank then appealed to the Cheyenne Sioux Tribal Court of Appeals, which affirmed the tribal court's decision.

Federal Court Actions

The bank then filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota, Central Division. The District Court held that the Tribal Court had jurisdiction. [2] The bank then appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the District Court ruling. [3] The U.S. Supreme Court then granted certiorari to hear the case. [4]

Opinion of the Court

Majority

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court. Roberts first looked at the Longs' claim that the bank did not have standing to raise the jurisdictional issue for the first time at the Supreme Court level. In most cases, appellants are prohibited from raising an issue at appeal that they have not raised in a lower court. Roberts stated that the court had an independent duty to look at standing and held that the bank did in fact have standing to bring the matter before the court. All of the justices concurred on this part of the opinion.

Roberts then held that the Tribal Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, and that the tribe did not have the power to regulate land sales of non-Indian fee land located within the reservation. In earlier cases, the Supreme Court had held in Montana v. United States , 450 U.S. 544 (1981) [5] that a tribe could regulate the actions of non-Indians on the reservation, and this formed the basis of the lower courts decisions. Roberts chose to distinguish the present case from Montana by focusing on the land sale instead of the alleged discriminatory conduct by the bank. Since the tribe lacked the authority to regulate the sale, Roberts held that the Tribal Court lacked jurisdiction.

Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part

Justice Ginsburg concurred in part and dissented in part. Ginsburg concurred in the part of the majority opinion that held that the bank had standing to bring the case. She dissented from the part of the opinion that distinguished the current case from Montana, stating that while the Tribal Court did not have the authority to regulate the bank's sale, the court did have the authority to hear a case involving discriminatory conduct by the bank. She would have affirmed the decision of the lower court.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tribal sovereignty in the United States</span> Type of political status of Native Americans

Tribal sovereignty in the United States is the concept of the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Little Bighorn River</span> River in Montana and Wyoming, United States

The Little Bighorn River is a 138-mile-long (222 km) tributary of the Bighorn River in the United States in the states of Montana and Wyoming. The Battle of the Little Bighorn, also known as the Battle of the Greasy Grass, was fought on its banks on June 25–26, 1876, as well as the Battle of Crow Agency in 1887.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Great Sioux Reservation</span> Former Indian reservation in the United States

The Great Sioux Reservation initially set aside land west of the Missouri River in South Dakota and Nebraska for the use of the Lakota Sioux, who had dominated this territory. The reservation was established in the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868. It included all of present-day western South Dakota and modern Boyd County, Nebraska. This area was established by the United States as a reservation for the Teton Sioux, also known as the Lakota: the seven western bands of the "Seven Council Fires".

United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886), was a United States Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act of 1885. This Congressional act gave the federal courts jurisdiction in certain Indian-on-Indian crimes, even if they were committed on an Indian reservation. Kagama, a Yurok Native American (Indian) accused of murder, was selected as a test case by the Department of Justice to test the constitutionality of the Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Omaha Reservation</span> Indian reservation in United States, Omaha

The Omaha Reservation of the federally recognized Omaha tribe is located mostly in Thurston County, Nebraska, with sections in neighboring Cuming and Burt counties, in addition to Monona County in Iowa. As of the 2020 federal census, the reservation population was 4,526. The tribal seat of government is in Macy. The villages of Rosalie, Pender and Walthill are located within reservation boundaries, as is the northernmost part of Bancroft. Due to land sales in the area since the reservation was established, Pender has disputed tribal jurisdiction over it, to which the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2016 that "the disputed land is within the reservation’s boundaries."

Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the jurisdiction of Tribal Courts when state officials are sued by tribal members in tribal court. The Supreme Court unanimously decided that Tribal courts lack jurisdiction to decide tort claims or § 1983 claims related to State law enforcement's process on the reservation, but related to a crime that allegedly occurred off the reservation nor must the parties exhaust their claims in Tribal court before filing in federal court.

Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), was a Supreme Court case that addressed two issues: (1) Whether the title of the Big Horn Riverbed rested with the United States, in trust for the Crow Nation or passed to the State of Montana upon becoming a state and (2) Whether Crow Nation retained the power to regulate hunting and fishing on tribal lands owned in fee-simple by a non-tribal member. First, the Court held that Montana held title to the Big Horn Riverbed because the Equal Footing Doctrine required the United States to pass title to the newly incorporated State. Second, the Court held that Crow Nation lacked the power to regulate nonmember hunting and fishing on fee-simple land owned by nonmembers, but within the bounds of its reservation. More broadly, the Court held that Tribes could not exercise regulatory authority over nonmembers on fee-simple land within the reservation unless (1) the nonmember entered a "consensual relationship" with the Tribe or its members or (2) the nonmember's "conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe."

United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court landmark case which held that both the United States and a Native American (Indian) tribe could prosecute an Indian for the same acts that constituted crimes in both jurisdictions. The Court held that the United States and the tribe were separate sovereigns; therefore, separate tribal and federal prosecutions did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Indian country jurisdiction in the United States that decided that opening up reservation lands for settlement by non-Indians does not constitute the intent to diminish reservation boundaries. Therefore, reservation boundaries would not be diminished unless specifically determined through acts of Congress.

Menominee Tribe v. United States, 391 U.S. 404 (1968), is a case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Menominee Indian Tribe kept their historical hunting and fishing rights even after the federal government ceased to recognize the tribe. It was a landmark decision in Native American case law.

South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress specifically abrogated treaty rights with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe as to hunting and fishing rights on reservation lands that were acquired for a reservoir.

Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state did not have the right to assess a tax on the property of a Native American (Indian) living on tribal land absent a specific Congressional grant of authority to do so.

Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States holding that an Indian tribe has the authority to impose taxes on non-Indians that are conducting business on the reservation as an inherent power under their tribal sovereignty.

New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U.S. 324 (1983), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the application of New Mexico's laws to on-reservation hunting and fishing by nonmembers of the Tribe is preempted by the operation of federal law.

Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Sac & Fox Nation, 508 U.S. 114 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that absent explicit congressional direction to the contrary, it must be presumed that a State does not have jurisdiction to tax tribal members who live and work in Indian country, whether the particular territory consists of a formal or informal reservation, allotted lands, or dependent Indian communities.

United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the United States is accountable in money damages for alleged breaches of trust in connection with its management of forest resources on allotted lands of the Quinault Reservation.

Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the State of Arizona does not have jurisdiction to try a civil case between a non-Indian doing business on a reservation with tribal members who reside on the reservation, the proper forum for such cases being the tribal court.

United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634 (1978), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that lands designated as a reservation in Mississippi are "Indian country" as defined by statute, although the reservation was established nearly a century after Indian removal and related treaties. The court ruled that, under the Major Crimes Act, the State has no jurisdiction to try a Native American for crimes covered by that act that occurred on reservation land.

Dollar General Corp. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court was asked to determine if an American Indian tribal court had the jurisdiction to hear a civil case involving a non-Indian who operated a Dollar General store on tribal land under a consensual relationship with the tribe. The Court was equally divided, 4–4, and thereby affirmed the decision of the lower court, in this case the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, that the court had jurisdiction.

Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to McGirt v. Oklahoma, decided in 2020. In McGirt, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Congress never properly disestablished the Indian reservations of the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma when granting its statehood, and thus almost half the state was still considered to be Native American land. As a result of McGirt, crimes under the Major Crimes Act by Native Americans in the former reservations are treated as federal crimes rather than state crimes.

References

  1. ↑ Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 316 (2008).
  2. 1 2 Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., 440F. Supp. 2d1070 (D.S.D.2006).
  3. ↑ Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., 491F.3d878 (8th Cir.2007).
  4. ↑ Order granting cert. reported at Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., 552 U.S. 1087 (2008).
  5. ↑ Montana v. United States , 450 U.S. 544 (1981).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.