Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering
Citation | 476 U.S. 877,106 S.Ct. 2305,90 L.Ed.2d 881 |
Decision Date | 16 June 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 84-1973,84-1973 |
Parties | THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES OF the FORT BERTHOLD RESERVATION, Petitioner v. WOLD ENGINEERING et al |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Petitioner Indian tribe brought suit against respondent corporation (hereafter respondent) in a North Dakota state court for negligence and breach of contract in connection with respondent's construction of a water-supply system on petitioner's reservation. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction. The North Dakota Supreme Court held that a North Dakota statute (Chapter 27-19)—which provides that jurisdiction of the State shall be extended over all civil claims for relief that arise on an Indian reservation upon acceptance by Indian citizens disclaimed the unconditional state court civil jurisdiction North Dakota had previously extended to tribal Indians suing non-Indians in state court, and that Chapter 27-19 barred petitioner from maintaining its suit in state court absent its waiver of sovereign immunity.
Held:
1. Because the federal statute governing state assumption of jurisdiction over Indian country, Pub.L. 280, was designed to extend the jurisdiction of the States over Indian country and to encourage state assumption of such jurisdiction, and because Congress specifically considered the issue of retrocession but did not provide for disclaimers of jurisdiction lawfully acquired other than under Pub.L. 280 prior to 1968, such disclaimers cannot be reconciled with the congressional plan embodied in Pub.L. 280 and thus are pre-empted. Pp. 884-887.
2. The conclusion that the operation of the North Dakota jurisdictional scheme in this case is inconsistent with federal law is reinforced by the fact that it imposes an undue burden on federal and tribal interests in Indian self-government and autonomy, as well as the federal interest in ensuring access to the courts. Pp. 887-893.
364 N.W.2d 98, reversed and remanded.
Raymond Cross, Boulder, Colo., for petitioner.
Gary H. Lee, Bismarck, N.D., for respondents.
Petitioner, Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, sought to sue respondent, Wold Engineering, P.C. (hereafter respondent), in state court for negligence and breach of contract. The North Dakota Supreme Court held that Chapter 27-19 of the North Dakota Century Code (1974) disclaimed the unconditional state court civil jurisdiction North Dakota had previously extended to tribal Indians suing non-Indians in state court. It ruled that under Chapter 27-19, petitioner could not avail itself of state court jurisdiction unless it consented to waive its sovereign immunity and to have any civil disputes in state court to which it is a party adjudicated under state law. 364 N.W.2d 98 (1985). The question presented is whether Chapter 27-19, as construed by the North Dakota Supreme Court, is repugnant to the Federal Constitution or is pre-empted by federal Indian law.
This is the second time this Court has been called upon to address this jurisdictional controversy. See Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold Engineering (Three Tribes I), 467 U.S. 138, 104 S.Ct. 2267, 81 L.Ed.2d 113 (1984) (Three Tribes I ). Because the facts and procedural history of the litigation were set forth in some detail in Three Tribes I, our present recitation will be brief.
Historically, Indian territories were generally deemed beyond the legislative and judicial jurisdiction of the state governments. See id., at 142, 104 S.Ct., at 2271. This restriction was reflected in the federal statute which admitted North Dakota to the Union, Enabling Act of Feb. 22, 1889, § 4, cl. 2, 25 Stat. 677, and was embodied in the form of jurisdictional disclaimers in North Dakota's original Constitution. See N.D. Const., Art. XVI, § 203, cl. 2 (1889). The pre-existing federal restrictions on state jurisdiction over Indian country were largely eliminated, however, in 1953 with Congress' enactment of the Act of Aug. 15, 1953, 67 Stat. 588, as amended, 28 U.S.C. § 1360, which is commonly known as Public Law 280. Pub.L. 280 gave federal consent to the assumption of state civil and criminal jurisdiction over Indian country and provided the procedures by which such an assumption could be made. See Three Tribes I, supra, at 143, 104 S.Ct., at 2271-2272. As originally enacted, Pub.L. 280 did not require the States to obtain the consent of affected Indian tribes before assuming jurisdiction over them, but Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 amended Pub.L. 280 to require that all subsequent assertions of jurisdiction be preceded by tribal consent. Pub.L. 90-284, §§ 401, 402, 406, 82 Stat. 78-80, codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 1321, 1322, 1326.
As this Court explained in Three Tribes I:
467 U.S., at 143-144, 104 S.Ct., at 2272.
Although Vermillion v. Spotted Elk, 85 N.W.2d 432 (1957), was decided after the enactment of Pub.L. 280, the North Dakota Supreme Court made clear that it was confirming pre-existing jurisdiction rather than establishing a previously unavailable jurisdictional category. Id., at 435-436. See also Three Tribes I, supra, 467 U.S., at 150, n. 9, 104 S.Ct., at 2275, n. 9.
That part of Vermillion that recognized jurisdiction over non-Indians' claims against Indians impermissibly intruded on tribal self-government and thus could not be sustained. 467 U.S., at 148, 104 S.Ct., at 2274. See also Fisher v. District Court, 424 U.S. 382, 96 S.Ct. 943, 47 L.Ed.2d 106 (1976); Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 79 S.Ct. 269, 3 L.Ed.2d 251 (1959). But, as this Court in Three Tribes I affirmed, North Dakota's recognition of jurisdiction over the claims of Indian plaintiffs against non-Indian defendants was lawful because such jurisdiction did not interfere with the right of tribal Indians to govern themselves and was not subject to Pub.L. 280's procedural requirements since the jurisdiction was lawfully assumed prior to that enactment. See 467 U.S., at 148-149, 151, n. 11, 104 S.Ct., at 2274-2275, 2276, n. 11.
In 1958, North Dakota amended its Constitution to authorize its legislature to provide by statute for the acceptance of jurisdiction over Indian country, see N.D. Const., Art. XIII, § 1, cl. 2, and in 1963, the North Dakota Legislature enacted Chapter 27-19. That Chapter provides, in pertinent part:
N.D.Cent.Code § 27-19-01 (Supp.1985).
In subsequent cases, the North Dakota Supreme Court read this provision to "completely disclaim" the state jurisdiction recognized in Vermillion in cases in which the defendant was an Indian, absent tribal consent to jurisdiction as provided by statute. See, e.g., In re Whiteshield, 124 N.W.2d 694 (1963). However, until the instant suit, the court never squarely held that Chapter 27-19 also disclaimed the jurisdiction Vermillion lawfully recognized over cases in which an Indian sued a non-Indian in state court for a claim arising in Indian country. See Three Tribes I, 467 U.S., at 144-145, 104 S.Ct., at 2272-2273.
Petitioner filed the instant suit against respondent in state court for negligence and breach of contract in connection with respondent's construction of a water-supply system on petitioner's reservation. At the time the suit was filed, petitioner's tribal court did not have jurisdiction over such claims. After counterclaiming for petitioner's alleged failure to make payments on the system, respondent moved to dismiss petitioner's complaint, arguing that the state court had no jurisdiction because petitioner has never consented to state court jurisdiction over the Fort Berthold Reservation under Chapter 27-19. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal on appeal. 321 N.W.2d 510 (1982).
In so doing, the North Dakota Supreme Court held that any residuary jurisdiction the North Dakota courts possessed under Vermillion over suits by an Indian against a non-Indian arising in Indian country was "totally disclaimed" when the North Dakota Legislature, "[u]nder the authority of Public Law 280," instituted the consent requirement of Chapter 27-19. 321 N.W.2d, at 511-512. It concluded that "we have no jurisdiction over civil causes of action arising within the exterior boundaries of an Indian reservation, unless the Indian citizens of the reservation vote to accept jurisdiction." Id., at 512. The court also rejected petitioner's federal and state constitutional challenges, relying in part on the argument that the discrimination against Indian litigants embodied in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People ex rel. Owen v. Miami Nation Enters., S216878
...immunity bars state's suit to enforce collection of sales tax on cigarettes]; Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold Engineering, P.C. (1986) 476 U.S. 877, 891, 106 S.Ct. 2305, 90 L.Ed.2d 881 (Three Affiliated Tribes ) [federal law preempts requirement that tribe waive its sovereign immunity in al......
-
Self v. Cher-Ae Heights Indian Cmty. of the Trinidad Rancheria
...context, the exercise of state authority would violate federal law.’ " ( Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering (1986) 476 U.S. 877, 884, 106 S.Ct. 2305, 90 L.Ed.2d 881 ; Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Superior Court (2006) 40 Cal.4th 239, 248, 5......
-
People ex rel. Owen v. Miami Nation Enters., S216878
...immunity bars state's suit to enforce collection of sales tax on cigarettes]; Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold Engineering, P.C. (1986) 476 U.S. 877, 891, 106 S.Ct. 2305, 90 L.Ed.2d 881 (Three Affiliated Tribes ) [federal law preempts requirement that tribe waive its sovereign immunity in al......
-
In re Mayes
...the sovereign immunity of States as preserved by the Eleventh Amendment. Tribal immunity is described in Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering:11 The common law sovereign immunity possessed by the Tribe is a necessary corollary to Indian sovereignty an......
-
Understanding Tribal Sovereignty: An Essential Primer for Productive Native American Relations
...Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U.S at 788.41. Id. (quoting Three Aliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. WoldEngineering, P.C., 476 U.S. 877, 890 (1986)).42. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 754 (1998).43. United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S.......
-
Protecting habitat for off-reservation tribal hunting and fishing rights: tribal comanagement as a reserved right.
...did not extend state civil/regulatory laws onto the reservation); Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Eng'g, 476 U.S. 877, 891 (1986) (holding that Public Law 280 did not waive tribal sovereign immunity); Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373, 377 (1976) (holding......
-
Fighting for Air in Indian Country: Clean Air Act Jurisdiction in Off-Reservation Tribal Land
...State Tax Comm’n, 411 U.S. 164, 172 (1973)). 198. See, e.g. , hree Ailiated Tribes of Ft. Berthold Reservation v. Wold Eng’g, P.C., 476 U.S. 877, 884, 893 (1986); White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136, 143 (1980). 199. McClanahan , 411 U.S. at 172. 200. 42 U.S.C. §7601(d)(2).......
-
CHAPTER 6 LITIGATION WITH INDIANS
...[125] 436 U.S. 49, 98 S.Ct. 1670 (1978). [126] See Note, In Defense Of Tribal Sovereign Immunity, 95 Harv. L. Rev. 1058 (1982). [127] 476 U.S. 877, 106 S.Ct. 2305 (1986) (holding that the State of North Dakota was preempted by federal Indian law from "disclaiming" pre-existing jurisdiction ......
-
Sovereign Immunity and State Regulation of Federal Facilities and Tribes
...15, 1953), codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. §1360 (2000). 151. Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Barthold Reservation v. Wold Eng’g, 476 U.S. 877, 879 (1986) (citing Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold Eng’g, 467 U.S. 138, 143 (1984)). For a more complete discussion of the complexities of Pub......