Introduction

Plains Commerce Bank, Petitioner v. Long Family Land and Cattle Company, Inc., et al. (554 U.S. 316, 2008) is a seminal United States Supreme Court case that delves into the intricate boundaries of tribal sovereignty, particularly concerning the jurisdiction of tribal courts over non-members and fee land transactions. The case originated when Plains Commerce Bank sought to challenge a judgment rendered by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court, which had ruled against the bank in a discrimination claim filed by Ronnie and Lila Long, members of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.

The primary issue contested was whether the tribal court possessed the authority to adjudicate a discrimination claim involving the sale of fee simple land to non-members of the tribe. This case not only scrutinizes the extent of tribal jurisdiction but also reinforces the limitations imposed by precedents like MONTANA v. UNITED STATES.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, in a majority opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, reversed the decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court held that the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the discrimination claim against Plains Commerce Bank concerning the sale of fee simple land to non-members. The Court emphasized that, under the general rule established in MONTANA v. UNITED STATES, tribal sovereignty does not extend to regulating the activities of non-members on fee simple land, except under narrowly defined circumstances.

The ruling clarified that the tribal court's jurisdiction was improperly extended to the discrimination claim, thereby nullifying the judgment against the bank related to that specific claim. However, the Court did not address other claims such as breach of contract and bad faith, which were part of the original lawsuit.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court extensively referenced several key precedents that define the scope of tribal jurisdiction:

• MONTANA v. UNITED STATES (450 U.S. 544, 1981): Established the general rule that tribal courts do not have jurisdiction over non-members except under specific exceptions.
• STRATE v. A-1 CONTRACTORS (520 U.S. 438, 1997): Clarified that once tribal land is converted to fee simple, the tribe loses plenary jurisdiction over it.
• County of YAKIMA v. CONFEDERATED TRIBES and Bands of Yakima Nation (502 U.S. 251, 1992): Reinforced that tribes cannot regulate non-member activities on fee simple land.
• SOUTH DAKOTA v. BOURLAND (508 U.S. 679, 1993): Asserted that tribes lose regulatory authority over fee land once conveyed to non-members.

These cases collectively underscore the limited nature of tribal sovereignty, especially concerning non-member interactions and fee simple land transactions.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning hinged on the distinction between tribal-owned land and fee simple land owned by non-members. Under the General Allotment Act, fee simple land is fully alienable and outside the plenary jurisdiction of the tribe. The Court reasoned that the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe could not regulate or adjudicate claims related to the sale of fee simple land to non-members because such regulation does not fall within the tribe's inherent sovereign powers.

Additionally, the Court dismissed the notion that the bank's commercial relationship with the Longs extended tribal jurisdiction to the sale of fee land. The Court emphasized that the bank did not consent to tribal jurisdiction over the discrimination claim, especially since the claim was specifically tied to the sale of fee land, a matter outside tribal authority.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for the scope of tribal jurisdiction:

• Clarification of Jurisdictional Limits: Reinforces the boundaries set by MONTANA v. UNITED STATES, limiting tribal courts' authority over non-member fee land transactions.
• Future Litigation: Sets a precedent that tribal courts cannot adjudicate discrimination claims related to the sale of fee simple land to non-members, steering such disputes to federal or state courts.
• Tribal Sovereignty: Highlights the delicate balance between respecting tribal self-governance and recognizing the limitations imposed by federal law.

Legal practitioners and tribal entities must navigate these boundaries carefully, ensuring that tribal jurisdictions are not overstretched beyond their constitutionally and historically defined limits.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Tribal Sovereignty

Tribal sovereignty refers to the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the United States. This includes the power to establish laws, regulate internal affairs, and manage land within reservations.

Fee Simple Land

Fee simple is the most extensive form of property ownership recognized by law. It grants the owner complete freedom to use, sell, lease, or bequeath the property without restrictions from the original seller, excluding eminent domain by the state.

Montana Exceptions

Derived from MONTANA v. UNITED STATES, these exceptions allow tribes to exercise civil jurisdiction over non-members under limited circumstances:

• Consensual Relationships: Regulation of non-members who enter into agreements with the tribe or its members, such as contracts or leases.
• Threat to Sovereignty: Regulation of non-member conduct that directly affects the political integrity, economic security, or well-being of the tribe.

These exceptions are narrowly construed and do not extend tribal authority to matters like the sale of fee simple land to non-members.

Conclusion

Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land and Cattle Company, Inc. serves as a critical reaffirmation of the limits of tribal sovereignty, particularly concerning non-member interactions and fee simple land transactions. By delineating the boundaries of tribal jurisdiction, the Supreme Court protected the integrity of federal and state judicial systems while respecting tribal self-governance within its rightful scope. This decision ensures that tribal courts remain focused on matters directly impacting their sovereignty and internal affairs, preventing any undue expansion into areas outside their constitutional authority.

Moving forward, this case will guide both tribal entities and non-member stakeholders in understanding and respecting the jurisdictional limits, fostering clearer and more efficient legal proceedings when disputes arise involving tribal lands and non-member interactions.