99-1994 Nevada v. Hicks

Listen to this article

“Tribal courts, it should be clear, cannot be courts of general jurisdiction in this sense, for a tribe’s inherent adjudicative jurisdiction over nonmembers is at most only as broad as its legislative jurisdiction. … It is true that some statutes proclaim tribal-court jurisdiction over certain questions of federal law. … But no provision in federal law provides for tribal-court jurisdiction over sec. 1983 actions.”

“Because the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribes lacked legislative authority to restrict, condition, or otherwise regulate the ability of state officials to investigate off-reservation violations of state law, they also lacked adjudicative authority to hear respondent’s claim that those officials violated tribal law in the performance of their duties. Nor can the Tribes identify any authority to adjudicate respondent’s sec. 1983 claim. And since the lack of authority is clear, there is no need to exhaust the jurisdictional dispute in tribal court. State officials operating on a reservation to investigate off-reservation violations of state law are properly held accountable for tortious conduct and civil rights violations in either state or federal court, but not in tribal court.”

Reversed and remanded.

Local Effect:

The Seventh Circuit has not previously considered the issue.

Scalia, J.; Souter, J., concurring; Ginsburg, J., concurring; O’Connor, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment; Stevens, J., concurring in the judgment.

Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 196 F.3d 1020.