Strate v. A-1 Contractors - 520 U.S. 438, 117 S. Ct. 1404 (1997)

Rule:

When an accident occurs on a portion of a public highway maintained by a state under a federally granted right-of-way over Indian reservation land, tribal courts may not entertain a civil action against an allegedly negligent driver and the driver's employer, neither of whom is a member of the tribe. Such cases fall within state or federal regulatory and adjudicatory governance; tribal courts may not entertain claims against nonmembers arising out of accidents on state highways, absent a statute or treaty authorizing the tribe to govern the conduct of nonmembers on the highway in question.

Facts:

Vehicles driven by petitioner Fredericks and respondent Stockert collided on a portion of a North Dakota state highway that runs through the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. The 6.59-mile stretch of highway within the reservation is open to the public, affords access to a federal water resource project, and is maintained by North Dakota under a federally granted right-of-way that lies on land held by the United States in trust for the Three Affiliated Tribes and their members. Neither driver is a member of the Tribes or an Indian, but Fredericks is the widow of a deceased tribal member and has five adult children who are also members. The truck driven by Stockert belonged to his employer, respondent A-1 Contractors, a non-Indian-owned enterprise with its principal place of business outside the reservation. At the time, A-1 was under a subcontract with LCM Corporation, a corporation wholly owned by the Tribes, to do landscaping within the reservation. The record does not show whether Stockert was engaged in subcontract work at the time of the accident. Fredericks filed a personal injury action in Tribal Court against Stockert and A-1, and Fredericks' adult children filed a loss-of-consortium claim in the same lawsuit. The Tribal Court ruled that it had jurisdiction over Fredericks' claim and therefore denied respondents' motion to dismiss, and the Northern Plains Intertribal Court of Appeals affirmed. Respondents then commenced this action in the Federal District Court against Fredericks, her adult children, the Tribal Court, and Tribal Judge Strate, seeking a declaratory judgment that, as a matter of federal law, the Tribal Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Fredericks' claims; respondents also sought an injunction against further Tribal Court proceedings. Relying particularly on National Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe, 471 U.S. 845, 85 L. Ed. 2d 818, 105 S. Ct. 2447, and Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9, 94 L. Ed. 2d 10, 107 S. Ct. 971, the District Court dismissed the action, determining that the Tribal Court had civil jurisdiction over Fredericks' complaint against respondents. The en banc Eighth Circuit reversed, concluding that the controlling precedent was Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 67 L. Ed. 2d 493, 101 S. Ct. 1245, and that, under Montana, the Tribal Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

Issue:

Did the Tribal court have jurisdiction over a personal injury action against a nonmember of Indian tribes concerning an automobile accident on North Dakota state highway located on federal right of way on tribes' reservation?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court held that the Tribal Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the personal injury action, because the employee's allegedly tortious activities were not those of a nonmember who had entered a consensual relationship with the tribes or their members, through commercial dealing, contracts, leases, or other arrangements. Neither regulatory nor adjudicatory authority over the state highway accident was needed to preserve the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them. Requiring the employer and the employee to defend against the commonplace state highway accident claim in an unfamiliar court was not crucial to the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribes. Thus, the widow could pursue the case against the employer and the employee in the state forum that was open to all who sustained injuries on the state highway.