Strate v. A-1 Contractors

Last updated

Strate v. A-1 Contractors
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 7, 1997
Decided April 28, 1997
Full case nameStrate, Associate Tribal Judge, Tribal Court of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, Et Al. v. A-1 Contractors Et Al.
Citations520 U.S. 438 ( more )
117 S. Ct. 1404; 137 L. Ed. 2d 661
Case history
PriorA-1 Contractors v. Strate, 76 F.3d 930 (8th Cir. 1996); cert. granted, 518 U.S. 1056(1996).
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinion
MajorityGinsburg, joined by unanimous

Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997), is a United States Supreme Court case addressing Tribal courts' adjudicatory authority over civil matters between nonmembers of the Tribe that take place on public highways in Indian Country. [1] [2] [3] Applying Montana v. United States , the Court held that, absent Congressional authorization, Tribal courts cannot adjudicate civil matters between nonmembers that occur on state-maintained public highways passing over reservation land. [4] Justice Ginsburg delivered the unanimous decision of the Court. [5]

Contents

Facts

In November 1990, on a strip of state highway passing through the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, a gravel truck, owned by A-1 Contractors and driven by their employee Lyle Stockert allegedly struck Gisela Frederick's car. [4]

Seriously injured, Fredericks spent 24 days in the hospital. [6] In May 1991, Fredericks filed a personal injury lawsuit in the Tribal Court for the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation. She, and her children, who filed a loss of consortium claim, sought over $13 million in damages. [7]

The State of North Dakota maintained the highway and was granted a right-of-way from the United States federal government. [8] Although A-1 Contractors was subcontracting for a Tribal owned corporation at the time of the accident, it was not Indian-owned and its principal place of business was outside the reservation. The driver was not a member of the Tribe. Nor was Gisela Fredricks, although her children and her late husband were all Tribe members. [6]

Opinion

The Court held that the Montana Rule, which governs whether Tribes have civil jurisdiction over nonmembers on fee-simple land, also applied to the state-maintained public highway because the terms of the federal right of way grants the State control over traffic. The Tribe reserved the right to construct crossings, but did not reserve any rights to "dominion or control" over the right-of-way. [9]

Applying Montana, Tribes do not have civil jurisdiction over matters involving non-Tribe members and occurring in areas within their reservation where they do not have dominion or control unless (1) the nonmembers "enter consensual relationships with the tribe or its members, through commercial dealing, contracts, leases, or other arrangements" [10] 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." [11] The Court found that neither exception applied.

First, the Court found no "consensual relationship" for a car accident. Even though A-1 Contractors was in a consensual relationship with the Tribe as a subcontractor for a Tribally-owned company, Fredericks was not a party to this contract. The court differentiates the accident from prior case law where the "consensual relationship" exception applied, such as Williams v. Lee ; These cases typically involve sales taxes or taxes for doing business on the reservation. [12]

Second, although the Court recognized that "driv[ing] carelessly on a public highway running through a reservation endanger[s] all in the vicinity, and surely jeopardize[s] the safety of tribal members", this concern is not enough of a threat to the welfare of the Tribe to qualify as an exception under Montana. [11] Instead, the Court quotes narrowing language from Montana, asserting that "a tribe's inherent power does not reach beyond what is necessary to protect tribal self-government or to control internal relations." [13]

See also

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.

The Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation, also known as the Three Affiliated Tribes, is a Native American Nation resulting from the alliance of the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara peoples, whose native lands ranged across the Missouri River basin extending from present day North Dakota through western Montana and Wyoming.

Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court case deciding that Indian tribal courts have no criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. The case was decided on March 6, 1978 with a 6–2 majority. The court opinion was written by William Rehnquist, and a dissenting opinion was written by Thurgood Marshall, who was joined by Chief Justice Warren Burger. Justice William J. Brennan did not participate in the decision.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Flathead Indian Reservation</span> Indian reservation in United States, Confederated Salish and Kootenai

The Flathead Indian Reservation, located in western Montana on the Flathead River, is home to the Bitterroot Salish, Kootenai, and Pend d'Oreilles tribes – also known as the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation. The reservation was created through the July 16, 1855, Treaty of Hellgate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James E. Graves Jr.</span> American judge

James Earl Graves Jr. is an American lawyer who serves as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court concluded that Indian tribes could not prosecute Indians who were members of other tribes for crimes committed by those nonmember Indians on their reservations. The decision was not well received by the tribes, because it defanged their criminal codes by depriving them of the power to enforce them against anyone except their own members. In response, Congress amended a section of the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1301, to include the power to "exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians" as one of the powers of self-government.

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.

Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978), was a landmark case in the area of federal Indian law involving issues of great importance to the meaning of tribal sovereignty in the contemporary United States. The Supreme Court sustained a law passed by the governing body of the Santa Clara Pueblo that explicitly discriminated on the basis of sex. In so doing, the Court advanced a theory of tribal sovereignty that weighed the interests of tribes sufficient to justify a law that, had it been passed by a state legislature or Congress, would have almost certainly been struck down as a violation of equal protection.

The Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that legalized same-sex marriage in the states and most territories did not legalize same-sex marriage on Indian reservations. In the United States, Congress has legal authority over tribal reservations. Thus, unless Congress passes a law regarding same-sex marriage that is applicable to tribal governments, federally recognized American Indian tribes have the legal right to form their own marriage laws. As such, the individual laws of the various United States federally recognized Native American tribes may set limits on same-sex marriage under their jurisdictions. At least ten reservations specifically prohibit same-sex marriage and do not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions; these reservations, alongside American Samoa, remain the only parts of the United States to enforce explicit bans on same-sex couples marrying.

C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band, Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 532 U.S. 411 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the tribe waived its sovereign immunity when it agreed to a contract containing an arbitration agreement.

City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 544 U.S. 197 (2005), was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court held that repurchase of traditional tribal lands 200 years later did not restore tribal sovereignty to that land. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion.

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.

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.

Atkinson Trading Co. v. Shirley, 532 U.S. 645 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the Navajo Nation's imposition of a hotel occupancy tax upon nonmembers on non-Indian fee land within its reservation is invalid.

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.

References

  1. ↑ Dodson, Scott, ed. (2015). The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. p. 168. ISBN   978-1-107-06246-7 . Retrieved September 23, 2020.
  2. ↑ "RBG's Mixed Record on Race and Criminal Justice". The Marshall Project . September 23, 2020. Retrieved September 23, 2020.
  3. ↑ Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997).
  4. 1 2 520 U.S. at 442.
  5. ↑ 520 U.S. at 441.
  6. 1 2 520 U.S. at 443.
  7. ↑ 520 U.S. at 444
  8. ↑ 520 U.S. at 442–43.
  9. ↑ 520 U.S. at 440.
  10. ↑ 520 U.S. at 456–57.
  11. 1 2 520 U.S. at 457–58.
  12. ↑ 520 U.S. at 457.
  13. ↑ 520 U.S. at 459 (brackets omitted).
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.