Strate v. A-1 Contractors
97 Daily Journal DAR 5328, 117 S. Ct. 1404, 520 US 438 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Absent specific authorization by treaty or statute, a tribal court does not have adjudicatory jurisdiction over a civil action against nonmembers arising from an accident on a state highway running through a reservation, as the highway right-of-way is equivalent to non-Indian land for jurisdictional purposes.
Facts:
- A portion of a North Dakota state highway runs through the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation.
- The State of North Dakota maintains this highway under a right-of-way granted by the United States, on land held in trust for the Three Affiliated Tribes.
- A-1 Contractors, a non-Indian-owned company, was performing subcontract work for a tribally-owned corporation within the reservation's boundaries.
- In November 1990, a gravel truck driven by Lyle Stockert, an employee of A-1 Contractors, collided with a car driven by Gisela Fredericks on the state highway within the reservation.
- Neither Stockert nor Fredericks were members of the Three Affiliated Tribes, though Fredericks was the widow of a deceased tribal member.
- Fredericks sustained serious injuries as a result of the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Gisela Fredericks sued A-1 Contractors and Lyle Stockert in the Tribal Court for the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation.
- The defendants (A-1 Contractors and Stockert) made a special appearance to contest jurisdiction, but the Tribal Court denied their motion to dismiss.
- The defendants appealed to the Northern Plains Intertribal Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Tribal Court's jurisdictional ruling.
- The defendants then filed a new action in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Tribal Court lacked jurisdiction.
- The U.S. District Court dismissed the action, ruling in favor of the Tribal Court's jurisdiction.
- On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed the District Court, holding that the Tribal Court lacked jurisdiction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Eighth Circuit'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 civil jurisdiction over a personal injury action against non-tribal members for an accident that occurred on a state-maintained public highway running through an Indian reservation?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ginsburg
No. A tribal court's adjudicative jurisdiction does not exceed its legislative jurisdiction, and tribes generally lack civil authority over the conduct of nonmembers on non-Indian land within a reservation. The Court reasoned that the state highway, maintained by North Dakota under a federally granted right-of-way, is equivalent to alienated, non-Indian land for purposes of analyzing tribal jurisdiction. Therefore, the controlling precedent is Montana v. United States, which establishes a general rule that tribes lack jurisdiction over nonmembers on such land. The Court then analyzed Montana's two exceptions. The first exception, for nonmembers in consensual relationships with the tribe, did not apply because the accident itself was not a consensual relationship, and the tribe was a stranger to the tort. The second exception, for conduct that threatens the political integrity, economic security, or health or welfare of the tribe, also did not apply; a 'run-of-the-mill' highway accident, while dangerous, does not sufficiently threaten tribal self-government to trigger jurisdiction. Thus, the tribal court lacked authority to hear the case.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and arguably narrows the scope of tribal court civil jurisdiction over nonmembers. It establishes the important principle that a tribe's adjudicatory authority is coextensive with its legislative authority, meaning a tribal court can only hear cases that the tribe has the power to regulate. By classifying a state highway right-of-way as equivalent to alienated non-Indian land, the decision brings a vast category of on-reservation incidents under the restrictive Montana framework. This holding limits the ability of tribal courts to provide a forum for torts involving nonmembers that occur on major thoroughfares within reservation boundaries, pushing such litigation into state or federal courts.
Unlock the full brief for Strate v. A-1 Contractors