Nevada v Hicks
| Decision Date | 25 June 2001 |
| Docket Number | 991994 |
| Parties | NEVADA, et al., PETITIONERS v. FLOYD HICKS, et al.SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Respondent Hicks is a member of the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribes of western Nevada and lives on the Tribes' reservation. After petitioner state game wardens executed state-court and tribal-court search warrants to search Hicks's home for evidence of an off-reservation crime, he filed suit in the Tribal Court against, inter alios, the wardens in their individual capacities and petitioner Nevada, alleging trespass, abuse of process, and violation of constitutional rights remediable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Tribal Court held that it had jurisdiction over the tribal tort and federal civil rights claims, and the Tribal Appeals Court affirmed. Petitioners then sought, in Federal District Court, a declaratory judgment that the Tribal Court lacked jurisdiction over the claims. The District Court granted respondents summary judgment on that issue and held that the wardens would have to exhaust their qualified immunity claims in the Tribal Court. In affirming, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the fact that Hicks's home is on tribe-owned reservation land is sufficient to support tribal jurisdiction over civil claims against nonmembers arising from their activities on that land.
Held:
1. The Tribal Court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the wardens' alleged tortious conduct in executing a search warrant for an off-reservation crime. Pp. 3-12.
(a) As to nonmembers, a tribal court's inherent adjudicatory authority is at most as broad as the tribe's regulatory authority. Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438, 453. Pp. 3-4.
(b) The rule that, where nonmembers are concerned, "the exercise of tribal power beyond what is necessary to protect tribal self-government or to control internal relations cannot survive without express congressional delegation," Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 564, applies to both Indian and non-Indian land. The land's ownership status is only one factor to be considered, and while that factor may sometimes be dispositive, tribal ownership is not alone enough to support regulatory jurisdiction over nonmembers. Pp. 4-6.
(c) Tribal authority to regulate state officers in executing process related to the off-reservation violation of state laws is not essential to tribal self-government or internal relations. The State's interest in executing process is considerable, and it no more impairs the Tribes' self-government than federal enforcement of federal law impairs state government. The State's interest is not diminished because this suit is against officials in their individual capacities. Pp. 6-11.
(d) Congress has not stripped the States of their inherent jurisdiction on reservations with regard to off-reservation violations of state law. The federal statutory scheme neither prescribes nor suggests that state officers cannot enter a reservation to investigate or prosecute such violations. Pp. 11-12.
2. The Tribal Court had no jurisdiction over the §1983 claims. Tribal courts are not courts of "general jurisdiction." The historical and constitutional assumption of concurrent state-court jurisdiction over cases involving federal statutes is missing with respect to tribal courts, and their inherent adjudicative jurisdiction over nonmembers is at most only as broad as their legislative jurisdiction. Congress has not purported to grant tribal courts jurisdiction over §1983 claims, and such jurisdiction would create serious anomalies under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Pp. 12-15.
3. Petitioners were not required to exhaust their claims in the Tribal Court before bringing them in the Federal District Court. Because the rule that tribal courts lack jurisdiction over state officials for causes of action relating to their performance of official duties is clear, adherence to the tribal exhaustion requirement would serve no purpose other than delay and is therefore unnecessary. Pp. 15-16.
4. Various arguments to the contrary lack merit. Pp. 16-21.196 F.3d 1020, reversed and remanded.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
This case presents the question whether a tribal court may assert jurisdiction over civil claims against state officials who entered tribal land to execute a search warrant against a tribe member suspected of having violated state law outside the reservation.
Respondent Hicks1 is one of about 900 members of the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribes of western Nevada. He resides on the Tribes' reservation of approximately 8000 acres, established by federal statute in 1908, ch. 53, 35 Stat. 85. In 1990 Hicks came under suspicion of having killed, off the reservation, a California bighorn sheep, a gross misdemeanor under Nevada law, see Nev. Rev. Stat. §501.376 (1999). A state game warden obtained from state court a search warrant "SUBJECT TO OBTAINING APPROVAL FROM THE FALLON TRIBAL COURT IN AND FOR THE FALLON PAIUTE-SHOSHONE TRIBES." According to the issuing judge, this tribal-court authorization was necessary because "[t]his Court has no jurisdiction on the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Indian Reservation." App. G to Pet. for Cert. 1. A search warrant was obtained from the tribal court, and the warden, accompanied by a tribal police officer, searched respondent's yard, uncovering only the head of a Rocky Mountain bighorn, a different (and unprotected) species of sheep.
Approximately one year later, a tribal police officer reported to the warden that he had observed two mounted bighorn sheep heads in respondent's home. The warden again obtained a search warrant from state court; though this warrant did not explicitly require permission from the Tribes, see App. F to Pet. for Cert. 2, a tribal-court warrant was nonetheless secured, and respondent's home was again (unsuccessfully) searched by three wardens and additional tribal officers.
Respondent, claiming that his sheep-heads had been damaged, and that the second search exceeded the bounds of the warrant, brought suit against the Tribal Judge, the tribal officers, the state wardens in their individual and official capacities, and the State of Nevada in the Tribal Court in and for the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribes. (His claims against all defendants except the state wardens and the State of Nevada were dismissed by directed verdict and are not at issue here.) Respondent's causes of action included trespass to land and chattels, abuse of process, and violation of civil rights specifically, denial of equal protection, denial of due process, and unreasonable search and seizure, each remediable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See App. 8-21, 25-29. Respondent later voluntarily dismissed his case against the State and against the state officials in their official capacities, leaving only his suit against those officials in their individual capacities. See id., at 32-35.
The Tribal Court held that it had jurisdiction over the claims, a holding affirmed by the Tribal Appeals Court. The state officials and Nevada then filed an action in federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment that the Tribal Court lacked jurisdiction. The District Court granted summary judgment to respondent on the issue of jurisdiction, and also held that the state officials would have to exhaust any claims of qualified immunity in the tribal court. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the fact that respondent's home is located on tribe-owned land within the reservation is sufficient to support tribal jurisdiction over civil claims against nonmembers arising from their activities on that land. 196 F.3d 1020 (1999). We granted certiorari, 531 U.S. 923 (2000).
In this case, which involves claims brought under both tribal and federal law, it is necessary to determine, as to the former, whether the Tribal Court in and for the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribes has jurisdiction to adjudicate the alleged tortious conduct of state wardens executing a search warrant for evidence of an off-reservation crime; and, as to the latter, whether the Tribal Court has jurisdiction over claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We address the former question first.
The principle of Indian law central to this aspect of the case is our holding in Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438, 453 (1997): "As to nonmembers a tribe's adjudicative jurisdiction does not exceed its legislative jurisdiction ." That formulation leaves open the question whether a tribe's adjudicative jurisdiction over nonmember defendants equals its legislative jurisdiction.2 We will not have to answer that open question if we determine that the Tribes in any event lack legislative jurisdiction in this case. We first inquire, therefore, whether the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribes either as an exercise of their inherent sovereignty, or under grant of federal authority can regulate state wardens executing a search warrant for evidence of an off-reservation crime.
Indian tribes' regulatory authority over nonmembers is governed by the principles set forth in Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), which we have called the "pathmarking case" on the subject, Strate, supra, at 445. In deciding whether the Crow Tribe could regulate hunting and fishing by nonmembers on land held in fee simple by nonmembers, Montana observed that,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
UTE Indian Tribe of the Uintah v. Lawrence
...jurisdiction so that the exhaustion requirement ‘would serve no purpose other than delay.’ " Id. (quoting Nevada v. Hicks , 533 U.S. 353, 369, 121 S.Ct. 2304, 150 L.Ed.2d 398 (2001) ). As will be described, infra , the court finds that these exceptions apply to the Tribal Court's February 2......
-
State ex rel. Suthers v. Cash Ad. and Pref.
...upon which its own jurisdiction depends." State ex rel. Danielson v. Vickroy, 627 P.2d 752, 759 (Colo.1981). Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353, 121 S.Ct. 2304, 150 L.Ed.2d 398 (2001), arose out of a claim, made by a member of a tribe, that Nevada officials had violated his civil rights by execu......
-
People ex rel. Becerra v. Huber
...that " ‘[o]rdinarily,’ ... ‘an Indian reservation is considered part of the territory of the State.’ " ( Nevada v. Hicks (2001) 533 U.S. 353, 361–362, 121 S.Ct. 2304, 150 L.Ed.2d 398 ; see also Village of Kake , supra , at p. 72 ; Acosta v. County of San Diego (1954) 126 Cal.App.2d 455, 463......
-
Hengle v. Asner
...over nonmembers must implicate " ‘the tribe's inherent sovereign authority.’ " Id. at 783 (first citing Nevada v. Hicks , 533 U.S. 353, 367, 121 S.Ct. 2304, 150 L.Ed.2d 398 (2001) and then quoting Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family & Cattle Co. , 554 U.S. 316, 337, 128 S.Ct. 2709, 171 L.Ed......
-
Supreme Court Docket Report - June 15, 2015
...judge noted that the Supreme Court has never held that a tribal court had jurisdiction over a nonmember defendant (see Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353, 358 n.2 (2001)) and expressed the view that a tribe's regulatory authority over nonmembers should be limited to what is necessary to protect ......
-
COMPATIBILITY OF THE FEDERAL TRUST RESPONSIBILITY WITH SELF-DETERMINATION OF INDIAN TRIBES: REFLECTIONS ON DEVELOPMENT OF THE FEDERAL TRUST RESPONSIBILITY IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
...under the first Montana exception because they have entered into private commercial relationships with tribes. SeeNevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353, 359 and n 3, 372 (2001). [187] .SeeNevada v. Hicks, supra;Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997). [188] .Chambers and Price at 1080. [189]......
-
Table of Cases
...48 S.Ct. 447, 72 L.Ed. 842 (1928), 984 Page 1696 Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972), 1150 Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353, 121 S.Ct. 2304, 150 L.Ed.2d 398 (2001), 739 Nevada Dep't of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721, 123 S.Ct. 1972, 155 L.Ed.2d 953 (2003)......
-
The Law and Economics of Crime in Indian Country
...136 S. Ct. 2159 (2016) (per curiam); Plains Com. Bank , 554 U.S. at 320; United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193, 196 (2004); Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353, 355 (2001). 35. 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020). 36. Brief for Respondent at 4, McGirt , 140 S. Ct. 2452 (No. 18-9526). 37. Id. 38. 39. McGirt , 14......
-
Sovereign Immunity and State Regulation of Federal Facilities and Tribes
...Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713, 718 (1983); Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145, 147-48 (1973). 147. See , e.g. , Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353, 364-65 (2001) (holding that a tribal court did not have jurisdiction to a member’s tort and §1983 claims against the state); South Dakota ......