What factors are important in determining the scope of state civil jurisdiction in Indian country?
It is important to emphasize that this is not a black and white area of law and the result in a particular case will depend on the nature of the law, the parties involved, and where an action took place. However, there are some general principles that provide guidance in determining the scope of state authority.
As noted in the earlier discussion dealing with basic principles, Indian tribes are sovereign nations with the right and power to regulate their own internal affairs. However, this power is subject to the overriding authority of the United States government through Congress to regulate and control Indian affairs. In the absence of federal regulation, Indian tribes retain inherent power to govern activities within their jurisdiction. The authority of states to regulate civil activity on Indian land is limited. States may regulate on-reservation activities where the state interest is consistent with or outweighs federal and tribal interests.(60) In addition, Congress may give states additional power. Public Law 280 is a good example of this principle.
How does Public Law 280 affect civil jurisdiction in Indian country?
Public Law 280 affects civil jurisdiction in Indian country, just as it affects criminal jurisdiction. Congress granted certain states, including Minnesota, special civil jurisdiction in Indian country, excluding the Red Lake Reservation.
Under Public Law 280, a distinction is made between a civil law of general application (for which the state will have jurisdiction) versus a civil regulatory law (for which the state will not have jurisdiction). State laws governing private matters between individuals, including contract law, family law and tort law, apply on Indian reservations.(61) However, general civil regulatory laws are not part of the civil jurisdiction that Public Law 280 grants to states over Indian land.
Also, it is important to note that Public Law 280 only confers jurisdiction for a statewide law, and does not apply to local ordinances, which do not apply on reservations. Tribal ordinances that are not in conflict with state law are usually given full force in effect in civil actions.(62)
What are the key cases in Minnesota dealing with how Public Law 280 governs civil jurisdiction?
Two Minnesota Supreme Court cases that were issued in 1997 are very helpful in understanding the scope of Public Law 280, particularly to the extent that it does not confer general civil regulatory power over Indian lands.(63) In State v. Stone, the issue was whether Minnesota laws regarding speeding, driver licensing, vehicle registration, seatbelt use, child restraint seat, motor vehicle insurance, and proof of insurance were civil regulatory laws for purposes of Public Law 280. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the state did not have jurisdiction under Public Law 280 to enforce those laws against members of an Indian tribe for conduct occurring within the boundaries of the reservation and that no exceptional circumstances justified the state's enforcement of those laws.
Similarly, in State v. Robinson, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the state law dealing with failure to yield to an emergency vehicle could not be enforced against a tribal member for conduct occurring on tribal land. However, the court held that the state did have jurisdiction to enforce the law dealing with underage consumption of alcohol, finding that it was a criminal law for purposes of Public Law 280 rather than a state regulatory provision.
It is also important to note that in many cases, tribal governments have laws that deal with civil regulatory issues.
How does sovereign immunity affect civil cases?
In some cases, the doctrine of sovereign immunity may prevent a person from bringing an action against an Indian tribe in state court, because of its status as a government. For example, Gavle v. Little Six, Inc.(64) involved a lawsuit by a non-Indian employee of a casino alleging sexual harassment, pregnancy and race discrimination, civil rights violations, and related torts. Although the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the state court had jurisdiction to consider the claims, it found that tribal sovereign immunity protected the tribe itself from being sued in the matter. Most significantly, the court held that the fact that the tribe was involved in a private or commercial enterprise, such as gambling, rather than a more traditional government activity, did not affect its sovereign immunity. However, as an example of how complicated these issues are, two of the seven justices filed dissenting opinions, arguing that a huge for-profit business such as a casino should not be able to rely upon the same sovereign immunity defense that is available to a tribe.