Dolgencorp, Inc. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
746 F.3d 167, 2014 WL 994936, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4870 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A Native American tribe may exercise civil jurisdiction over a nonmember for tort claims when the nonmember enters into a consensual relationship with the tribe or its members, and the tort claim has a sufficient nexus to that relationship.
Facts:
- Dolgencorp, Inc. operates a Dollar General store on land held in trust for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, under a lease agreement with the tribe.
- The tribe operates a Youth Opportunity Program (YOP) to place young tribal members in unpaid internships with local businesses.
- In 2003, Dale Townsend, the manager of the Dollar General store, agreed on behalf of Dolgencorp to participate in the YOP.
- Pursuant to this agreement, John Doe, a thirteen-year-old member of the tribe, was assigned to work as an unpaid intern at the Dollar General store.
- Doe alleges that while he was working at the store as part of the YOP, the manager, Townsend, sexually molested him.
Procedural Posture:
- John Doe sued Dolgencorp and its manager, Dale Townsend, in the Choctaw tribal court.
- The tribal court denied motions from Dolgencorp and Townsend to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The Choctaw Supreme Court affirmed the tribal court's jurisdictional ruling on interlocutory appeal and remanded the case.
- Dolgencorp and Townsend then filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, seeking to enjoin the tribal court proceedings.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the tribal defendants as to Dolgencorp, holding that the tribal court had jurisdiction, but granted an injunction for Townsend personally.
- Dolgencorp appealed the district court's summary judgment ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the first Montana exception grant a tribal court civil jurisdiction over a nonmember company for tort claims arising from an employee's alleged sexual assault of a tribal minor, where the company had a consensual relationship with the tribe by participating in an on-reservation youth internship program?
Opinions:
Majority - Graves, J.
Yes. A tribal court has civil jurisdiction over a nonmember company for tort claims arising from its consensual relationship with the tribe. The Supreme Court's decision in Montana v. United States establishes that tribes retain inherent sovereign power to exercise civil jurisdiction over non-Indians who enter consensual relationships with the tribe or its members. Here, Dolgencorp established such a relationship by leasing tribal land and agreeing to participate in the tribe's Youth Opportunity Program. The tort claims brought by John Doe have a direct nexus to this relationship, as the alleged assault occurred at the workplace where Doe was placed through the program. The tribe's interest in regulating the safety of a tribal child in a workplace on its own land is a legitimate exercise of its regulatory authority, which can be vindicated through a tort action in tribal court. The court rejected Dolgencorp's argument that Plains Commerce Bank added a requirement for a specific showing that the relationship threatens tribal self-governance, holding that the nexus requirement itself sufficiently cabins tribal authority. Finally, the potential for punitive damages does not divest the tribal court of its civil jurisdiction.
Dissenting - Smith, J.
No. Tribal court jurisdiction over nonmembers should be limited to instances where it is necessary to protect tribal self-government or control internal relations, and this ordinary tort action does not meet that standard. The majority's decision is an unprecedented and alarming expansion of tribal jurisdiction that goes far beyond what the Supreme Court has permitted. The dissent argues that Dolgencorp's participation in a short-term, unpaid internship program does not create a sufficient nexus to subject it to the entirety of the tribe's tort law, much of which may be unwritten or based on custom. This raises serious due process concerns for nonmembers forced to litigate in an unfamiliar forum without the full protection of the U.S. Constitution. The dissent contends that the reasoning in Plains Commerce Bank narrows, rather than expands, the Montana exceptions, and that the majority's holding creates a vague and unworkable standard for when nonmembers can be subjected to tribal court jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and strengthens tribal civil jurisdiction over nonmembers under the first Montana exception. By holding that a tort claim arising from an on-reservation internship program has a sufficient nexus to the underlying consensual agreement, the court affirmed a broad scope for tribal authority. The ruling is particularly important for its rejection of a narrower interpretation of Plains Commerce Bank, which could have severely limited the consensual relationship exception. This precedent empowers tribal courts to adjudicate disputes involving nonmember businesses that operate on tribal lands and engage with tribal members, especially concerning issues of health, safety, and employment.
Unlock the full brief for Dolgencorp, Inc. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians