James R. Smith v. Salish Kootenai College Court of Appeals of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation

434 F.3d 1127 James R. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SALISH KOOTENAI COLLEGE; Court of Appeals of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Defendants-Appellees. No. 03-35306. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted En Banc June 23, 2005. Filed January 10, 2006. Rex Palmer, Attorneys Inc., P.C., Missoula, MT, for the plaintiff-appellant. Robert J. Phillips, Phillips & Bohyer, P.C., Missoula, MT, for defendant-appellee Salish Kootenai College; John T. Harrison, Legal Department, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Indian Reservation, Pablo, MT, for defendant-appellee Court of Appeals of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation. Mary L. Smith, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae National Congress of American Indians. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana; Leif B. Erickson, Magistrate Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-02-00055-LBE. Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RYMER, HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, GRABER, GOULD, PAEZ, BERZON, CLIFTON, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. BYBEE, Circuit Judge. 1 The question presented in this case is whether a…

The question presented in this case is whether a non-Indian plaintiff consents to the civil jurisdiction of a tribal court by filing claims against an Indian defendant arising out of activities within the reservation where the defendant is located. Appellant James Smith, who is not a member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (“the Tribes”) of the Flathead Reservation, filed a claim in tribal court against Salish and Kootenai College (“SKC”) arising out of an automobile accident. After a jury returned a verdict in *1129 favor of SKC, Smith sought, an injunction in federal court, alleging that the tribal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The tribal courts had previously held that they had jurisdiction to adjudicate the case, and the district court agreed and denied the injunction. Concluding that Smith’s suit is within the first exception of Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 , 101 S.Ct. 1245 , 67 L.Ed.2d 498 (1981), and the rule in Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 , 79 S.Ct. 269 , 3 L.Ed.2d 251 (1959), we affirm.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Salish and Kootenai College was established by the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead…

with whom RYMER and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting:

1 would hold that the Tribal Court of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim involving Smith, a nonmember of the tribe. It is necessary to part company with the majority, for it parts company with compulsory Supreme Court guidance.

In Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 , 101 S.Ct. 1245 , 67 L.Ed.2d 493 (1981), the United States Supreme Court established the fundamental framework for considering whether a tribal court has jurisdiction over a claim involving any nonmember of the tribe. Under the rule of Montana , federal courts must presume that tribal courts lack jurisdiction over lawsuits involving nonmembers unless one of two exceptions specified by the Supreme Court applies:

id. at 565-66 , 101 S.Ct. 1245 (citations omitted). Because neither exception applies here, the Tribal Court of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes lacks jurisdiction to consider a claim involving Smith, a nonmember. In reaching a contrary conclusion, the majority errs and puts our circuit into conflict with recent Supreme Court jurisprudence on the jurisdiction of tribal courts…