Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co.
554 US 316, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5261, 171 L. Ed. 2d 457 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An Indian tribe's inherent sovereign authority does not extend to regulating a non-Indian's sale of fee land located within the reservation. The Montana exceptions, which permit tribal regulation of nonmember 'activities' or 'conduct,' do not encompass the alienation of non-Indian fee land.
Facts:
- Plains Commerce Bank, a non-Indian bank located off-reservation, had a long-standing commercial lending relationship with Ronnie and Lila Long, members of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and their business, the Long Company.
- As part of a debt restructuring agreement, the estate of Ronnie Long's non-Indian father deeded 2,230 acres of fee land located within the reservation to the Bank in lieu of foreclosure.
- The Bank then leased this land back to the Long Company for a two-year term, which included an option for the Company to repurchase the land.
- After suffering severe cattle losses, the Long Company was financially unable to exercise its repurchase option when the lease expired and subsequently defaulted.
- The Bank then sold the fee land to other non-Indian individuals, allegedly on terms more favorable than those it had previously offered to the Longs.
Procedural Posture:
- Ronnie and Lila Long and their company sued Plains Commerce Bank in the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court, alleging discrimination and other claims.
- The Tribal Court determined it had jurisdiction, and a jury returned a verdict for the Longs, awarding $750,000 in damages.
- In a supplemental judgment, the Tribal Court also granted the Longs an option to purchase a portion of the contested land.
- The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Bank then filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota, seeking to void the tribal judgment for lack of jurisdiction.
- The District Court granted summary judgment to the Longs, finding tribal jurisdiction was proper under the first Montana exception.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, with the Bank as appellant and the Longs as appellees, affirmed the District Court's decision.
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 tribal court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a discrimination claim brought by tribal members against a non-Indian bank concerning the bank's sale of its own fee land located within the reservation to other non-Indians?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Roberts
No. A tribal court lacks jurisdiction because a tribe's inherent sovereign power to regulate the activities of nonmembers does not extend to the sale of non-Indian-owned fee land. The Court distinguished between regulating nonmember conduct on the land and regulating the sale of the land itself. The first Montana exception, concerning consensual relationships, applies only to nonmember 'activities,' which does not include the alienation of fee land. Once land is converted to fee simple and owned by a non-Indian, the tribe loses plenary regulatory jurisdiction over it. Furthermore, the mere resale of the land does not 'imperil the subsistence' of the tribe and therefore does not satisfy the second Montana exception.
Dissenting-in-part - Justice Ginsburg
Yes, as to the damages claim. The Tribal Court had jurisdiction to award monetary damages for discrimination because the claim arose directly from the long-standing, consensual commercial relationship between the Bank and the Longs. This business relationship, which included extensive on-reservation dealings and BIA-guaranteed loans, constituted an 'activity' of a nonmember subject to tribal regulation under the first Montana exception. While the tribal court could not invalidate the sale to third parties, it retained the power to provide a traditional monetary remedy for the tortious injury the Longs suffered due to the Bank's discriminatory conduct within that commercial relationship.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of the first Montana exception by establishing a clear distinction between the regulation of nonmember 'activities' on fee land and the regulation of the 'sale' of that land. It reinforces the principle that once land within a reservation is converted to non-Indian fee status, a tribe's sovereign authority over it is severely curtailed, particularly concerning the core property right of alienation. The ruling limits tribal civil jurisdiction over non-Indians, suggesting that even a lengthy and complex commercial relationship with tribal members will not grant a tribe authority over a nonmember's subsequent sale of its own fee land to other nonmembers.
Unlock the full brief for Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co.