SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 13-1496
Dollar General Corporation, ET AL.,
Petitioners v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Issue: Whether Indian tribal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims against non tribe members, including as a means of regulating the conduct of non members who enter into consensual relationships with a tribe or its members. (SCOTUSBlog)
Commercial association between Indian lands and non members of the tribes have been controlled for the most part. The only exception is that the Supreme Court has left tribal civil jurisdiction over non members business actions unsettled.
Many people, including Indians, gain and make …show more content…
The first one is where non member events or activities are most likely disastrous to tribal government operations and life on the reservations. The second one is where a non tribe member consents to tribal jurisdiction, which is usually through a commercial transaction. There have been many cases that show that Indian lands enjoyed civil jurisdiction over non tribe members in disagreements beginning on Indian land. Some examples consist of: taxes on reservation resources removed by non tribe members, regulation of non member hunting and fishing on tribe land, and taxes on non member interests on reservation leaseholds. In the case of Dollar General corporation v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Dollar General rents land from the Choctaw tribe and was trust to operate one of its stores in agreement with a lease. In the lease agreement the store agreed to the Choctaw Tribal Tort Claims Act and to tribal court …show more content…
Dollar General argued that it is insignificant whether a tribal court assures fundamental fairness to litigants, or whether a non member has agreed to tribal jurisdiction. Dollar General, in its oral argument, took the argument further and claimed that no tribal court can use civil jurisdiction on non tribe members because the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to evaluate tribal court decisions. The short claims that American law can not hold an American citizen deprived of property without a neutral meeting and that tribal courts are not unbiased. Dollar General marked the matter as a tort claim, in its petition for certiorari. Dollar General did this to avert attention from the fact that the company had agreed to the application of tribal law under the lease. The court has always worried that non tribe members would be surprised in tribal court by unfair unknowable tribal tort law, since tribal courts differ from Traditional American courts. Dollar General argues that in its cert petition there is no assurance that the tribal court is equipped with the independence needed for fair treatment for non members. Dollar General does not claim that Mississippi Choctaw tribal court was involved in
No. 13-1496
Dollar General Corporation, ET AL.,
Petitioners v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Issue: Whether Indian tribal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims against non tribe members, including as a means of regulating the conduct of non members who enter into consensual relationships with a tribe or its members. (SCOTUSBlog)
Commercial association between Indian lands and non members of the tribes have been controlled for the most part. The only exception is that the Supreme Court has left tribal civil jurisdiction over non members business actions unsettled.
Many people, including Indians, gain and make …show more content…
The first one is where non member events or activities are most likely disastrous to tribal government operations and life on the reservations. The second one is where a non tribe member consents to tribal jurisdiction, which is usually through a commercial transaction. There have been many cases that show that Indian lands enjoyed civil jurisdiction over non tribe members in disagreements beginning on Indian land. Some examples consist of: taxes on reservation resources removed by non tribe members, regulation of non member hunting and fishing on tribe land, and taxes on non member interests on reservation leaseholds. In the case of Dollar General corporation v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Dollar General rents land from the Choctaw tribe and was trust to operate one of its stores in agreement with a lease. In the lease agreement the store agreed to the Choctaw Tribal Tort Claims Act and to tribal court …show more content…
Dollar General argued that it is insignificant whether a tribal court assures fundamental fairness to litigants, or whether a non member has agreed to tribal jurisdiction. Dollar General, in its oral argument, took the argument further and claimed that no tribal court can use civil jurisdiction on non tribe members because the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to evaluate tribal court decisions. The short claims that American law can not hold an American citizen deprived of property without a neutral meeting and that tribal courts are not unbiased. Dollar General marked the matter as a tort claim, in its petition for certiorari. Dollar General did this to avert attention from the fact that the company had agreed to the application of tribal law under the lease. The court has always worried that non tribe members would be surprised in tribal court by unfair unknowable tribal tort law, since tribal courts differ from Traditional American courts. Dollar General argues that in its cert petition there is no assurance that the tribal court is equipped with the independence needed for fair treatment for non members. Dollar General does not claim that Mississippi Choctaw tribal court was involved in