Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co. (2007)
- Docket
- 07-411
- Decided
- 2007-01-01
Summary
Question: Under the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Montana v. U.S. _ and _Nevada v. Hicks , do tribal courts have jurisdiction to hear claims based on civil suits against non-members who voluntarily did business with members? Conclusion: Generally yes, but not in cases such as this one where the conflict arises over the sale of a piece of land. On this issue, the Court held unanimously that tribal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear disputes concerning non- Indian banks' sales of their own lands. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts stated that although tribal courts have jurisdiction to regulate conduct occurring on tribal lands, that jurisdiction is lost once title to the land passes into the hands of non-Indians. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Stephen Breyer, wrote an opinion concurring and dissenting in part, agreeing that the tribal court did not have jurisdiction to disturb the bank's land sale but suggesting that certain damages for discrimination, awarded based on the bank's mistreatment of the Longs due to their Indian heritage, should not have been overturned.