National Farmers Union Insurance v. Crow Tribe of Indians
1985 U.S. LEXIS 27, 85 L. Ed. 2d 818, 471 US 845 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
As a matter of comity, a federal court should not exercise its subject-matter jurisdiction to determine the scope of a tribal court's civil jurisdiction over a non-Indian until the party challenging that jurisdiction has first exhausted all available remedies in the tribal court system.
Facts:
- Leroy Sage, a Crow Indian minor, was struck by a motorcycle in the parking lot of the Lodge Grass Elementary School.
- The school is a political subdivision of the State of Montana, located on state-owned land within the boundaries of the Crow Indian Reservation.
- The student body of the school is 85% Crow Indian.
- Sage's guardian, Flora Not Afraid, filed a personal injury lawsuit against the Lodge Grass School District in the Crow Tribal Court.
- Process for the lawsuit was served on Wesley Falls Down, the Chairman of the School Board.
- For unexplained reasons, Wesley Falls Down failed to notify the School District or its insurer that the lawsuit had been filed.
Procedural Posture:
- Leroy Sage's guardian filed suit against the Lodge Grass School District in the Crow Tribal Court.
- The Crow Tribal Court entered a default judgment for $153,000 against the School District.
- National Farmers Union Insurance Companies and the School District (petitioners) sued the Crow Tribe and its officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana (federal trial court), seeking an injunction.
- The U.S. District Court granted a permanent injunction against enforcement of the tribal court judgment, ruling that the tribal court lacked jurisdiction.
- The Crow Tribe (respondents) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (intermediate appellate court).
- A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision, holding that the federal court lacked jurisdiction to issue the injunction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
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 a federal district court have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to determine whether a tribal court has exceeded its lawful civil jurisdiction over a non-Indian, and if so, must the federal court abstain from exercising that jurisdiction until the challenging party has exhausted its remedies in the tribal court system?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
Yes. A federal district court has subject-matter jurisdiction to determine the limits of a tribal court's civil jurisdiction, but it must abstain from exercising it until tribal court remedies are exhausted. The question of whether an Indian tribe has the power to compel a non-Indian to submit to its civil jurisdiction is a federal question that arises under federal common law, thus invoking federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, principles of comity and the federal policy of supporting tribal self-government require that the tribal court itself be given the first opportunity to evaluate the factual and legal bases for any challenge to its jurisdiction. Unlike the criminal jurisdiction context addressed in Oliphant, Congress has not acted to divest tribal courts of civil jurisdiction over non-Indians. Therefore, requiring exhaustion of tribal remedies promotes tribal autonomy, allows for the development of a full record, and provides federal courts with the benefit of tribal court expertise.
Analysis:
This case establishes the landmark 'tribal exhaustion doctrine,' a rule of comity requiring federal courts to abstain from hearing challenges to tribal court jurisdiction until tribal remedies are exhausted. It solidifies the principle that while federal law ultimately defines the outer boundaries of tribal sovereignty, tribal courts are the proper initial forum for determining the scope of their own civil jurisdiction. This decision significantly strengthens the authority of tribal courts and creates a critical procedural prerequisite for any non-Indian entity seeking to challenge tribal authority in a federal forum. The doctrine shapes modern litigation strategy in federal Indian law, mandating deference to tribal judicial systems.
