# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls
For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 15 41

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Bel co ur t Pu bl ic Sch oo l Di st ric t; Ang el Po it ra

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Ell a Dav is

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

Turt le Mo un ta in Trib al Co ur t

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 15 42

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Bel co ur t Pu bl ic Sch oo l Di st ric t

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Eric a Ma la te rre

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

Turt le Mo un ta in Trib al Co ur t

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 15 43

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Bel co ur t Pu bl ic Sch oo l Di st ric t; Ch ris Pari si en

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Mi ke Nels on ; J ud y

Nels on on be ha lf o f th ei r Mi no r Ch il d S .N.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

Turt le Mo un ta in Trib al Co ur t

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 15 45

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Bel co ur t Pu bl ic Sch oo l Di st ric t; Ro m an Marc el la is ; Sc ho ol Bo ard Mem be rs for th e Bel co ur t Pu bl ic Sch oo l Di st ric t

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Bru ce All ard ; Mar ti n Des

jarla is ; Je ff Lad uc er; Ch ad Mar cel la is ; Ro be rt St

. Germ ai ne

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

Turt le Mo un ta in Trib al Co ur t

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t

-2

-__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 15 48

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Bel co ur t Pu bl ic Sch oo l Di st ric t; Ro m an Marc el la is ; Sc ho ol Bo ard Mem be rs for th e Bel co ur t Pu bl ic Sch oo l Di st ric t

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

St ev e Herm an

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

Turt le Mo un ta in Trib al Co ur t

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta - Bi sm arck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 10 , 20 14 Fil ed : M ay

15 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BYE, SMI TH, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SMI TH, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an ts
, Bel co ur t Pu bl ic Sch oo l Dis tri ct ("S ch oo l D i st ric t" ) an d

c ert ai n of it s em

pl oyees, br ou gh t an act io n ag ai ns t Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ees , m em be rs

-3

-of th e Turt le Mo un ta in Ban d of Ch ip pe wa In di an s ("Tri be ") an d th e Turt le Mo un ta in

Trib al Co ur t ("Tri ba l Co ur t" ), se ek in g (1 ) a de cl arat io n th at th e Trib al Co ur t la ck s juri sd ic ti on ov er cl ai m s th at th e Trib e m em be rs fil ed ag ai ns t Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an ts in

Trib al Co ur t, an d (2 ) in

jun ct io ns pr oh ib it in g th e pr os ecu ti on of th e cl ai m s be fo re th e Trib al Co ur t. Pl ai nt iff

-Ap pe ll an ts al so m ov ed fo r de fau lt jud gm en t ag ai ns t on e of th e Trib e m em

be rs

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n fo r de fau lt jud gm en t an d fo un d

th at th e Trib al Co ur t ha d juri sd ic ti on

. Fo r th e reas on s st at ed he rei n, we affi rm in pa rt

an d re ve rs e in pa rt.

I. Bac kg ro un d

The Sch oo l Dis tri ct is a po li ti cal su bd iv is io n of th e St a te of Nor th Dak ot a,
Bis mar ck Pub

. Sc h. Dis t. #1 v. St at e By an d Th ro ug h N.D. Leg is la ti ve Ass emb ly

, 51 1

N.W. 2 d 2 4 7, 25 1 (N.D. 19 94 ), th at op erat es wit hi n th e ex te rio r bo un da rie s of th e
Turt le Mo un ta in In di an Res erv at io n ("R es erv at io n" ). The Co ns ti tu ti on o f Nor th

Dak ot a req ui res th at th e Sch oo l Dis tri ct pr ov id e ed u c a t i on to al l ch il dr en in Nor th

Dak ot a, in cl ud in g ch il dr en who are In di an s or res id e on In di an res er va ti on s. N.D.

Co ns t. art

. VIII, § 1 ("[ P]ub li c sc ho ol s [ ] sh al l be op en to al l ch il dr en of th e st at e of

Nor th Dako ta

. . . .").

The Trib e an d Sch oo l Dis tri ct ha ve ag reed to m ut ua ll y sh are th e res po ns ib il it y fo r ed uc at i n g s t u d en ts
, bo th In di an an d no n- In di an , res id in g on th e Res erv at io n.
Acco rd in gl y , th e Trib e an d Sch oo l Dis tri ct en te red i n to ag reem en ts ("P la ns of Ope rat io ns ") in bo th 20 06 an d 20 09 th at pr ov id ed th e Sch oo l Dis tri ct wit h ex cl us iv e

au th or it y to ad m in is te r th e "d ay -to -d ay op erat io ns " of th e Turt l e M o u n ta in

Co m m un it y Hig h Sch oo l (" G r a n t H ig h Sch oo l" ), su bjec t to ap pl ic ab le la ws. Thi s

arra ng em en t ve st ed th e Sch oo l Dis tri ct wit h ex cl us iv e ad m in is tra ti ve au th or it y ov er,

am on g ot he r th in gs , th e su pe rv is io n an d em pl oym en t of st aff at Gran t Hig h Sch oo l. 1

Alt ho ug h bo th th e Sch oo l Dis tri ct an d Gran t Hig h Sch oo l op erat e wit hi n th e 1 bo un da rie s of th e R e s e r v a t i o n, it is un cl ear in th e reco rd wha t, if an y , of th ei r

-4

-Sev eral Trib e m em be rs fil ed su it ag ai ns t th e Sch oo l Dis tri ct an d it s em pl oyees i n Trib al Co ur t, al le gi ng de fam at io n, ex ces si ve us e of fo rce, an d m ul ti pl e

emp l o ym en t-r el at ed cl ai m s. The Trib al Co ur t ul ti m at el y di sm is se d th e cl ai m s

pu rs ua nt to th e Uni te d St at es Su pr em e Co ur t's de ci si on in Nev ad a v. Hick s , 53 3 U.S.

35 3 (2 00 1)

, on th e gr ou nd s th at th e Trib al Co ur t la ck ed juri sd ic ti on ov er th e Sch oo l

Dis tri ct an d i ts em

pl oyees fo r cl ai m s rela te d to th e em pl oyees' p erfo rm an ce o f th ei r of fic ia l du ti es

. O n ap pe al

, ho wev er, th e Turt le Mo un ta in Trib al Co ur t of App eal s ("Tri ba l Co ur t o f App eal s" ) rev ers ed th e Trib al Co ur t's de ci si on , fin di ng th at Hick s

was no t di sp os it iv e in pa rt be cau se th e Sch oo l Dis tri ct si gn ed th e Pl an s of Ope rat io ns , th ereb y su bjec ti ng it se lf to Trib al juri sd ic ti on

. The Sch oo l Dis tri ct an d it s em pl oyees 2

th erea fte r fil ed act io ns in fed eral co ur t, se ek in g (1 ) a de cl arat io n th at th e Trib al Co ur t
la ck s juri sd ic ti on ov er th e cl ai m s, an d (2 ) in jun ct io ns pr oh ib it in g th e Trib al m em be rs fro m pu rs ui ng th e cl ai m s an d li ke wis e pr oh ib it in g th e Trib al Co ur t fro m ad jud ic at in g th em

.

The Sch oo l Dis tri ct an d it s em pl oyees la te r m ov ed fo r de fau lt jud gm en t in on e of th e act io ns (" Nel

so n " act io n) ba se d on th e de fen da nt s' al le g e d f a il ur e to de fen d

ag ai ns t th e cl ai m s. The di st ric t co ur t ex erci se d it s di sc ret io n to d e n y t h e moti on ,

faci li ti es or th e la nd on whi ch th e faci li ti es are lo cat ed be lo ng to t h e Trib e. Per th e Pl an s of Ope rat io ns , ho wev er, it is cl ear th at so m e bu t no t al l of th e pr op ert y us ed by Gran t Hi gh Sch oo l i s " fed eral ly owne d."

Upo n co m

pl et io n of th e Trib al Co ur t of App eal s' ap pe ll at e rev ie w , al l re qu is it e 2
tri ba l rem ed ie s were ex ha us te d. St ra te v. A-1 Co nt ra ct or s , 52 0 U.S. 43 8, 44 9 (1 99 7) ( " [ A ] f e d e r al co ur t sh ou ld st ay it s ha nd un ti l aft er th e Trib al Co ur t ha s ha d a fu ll

o p po rtu ni ty to de te rm in e it s own juri sd ic ti on ." (q uo ta ti on om it te d) ). The S c h o o l Dis tri ct an d it s em

pl oyees were no t req ui red to fu ll y li ti ga te th e m eri ts of th e cl ai m s be fo re s eek in g re vi ew of th e Trib al Co ur t's juri sd ic ti on in fed eral co ur t. St ra te , 52 0 U.S. at 45 9 n.1 4 (ex ha us ti on no t req ui red whe n, am on g ot he r th in gs , it "wo ul d se rv e

no pu rp os e o th er t ha n d el ay ").

-5

-ho wev er, hol di ng th at , at l eas t i n t ha t ca se , "d efau lt jud gm en t is no t th e ap pr op ria te

av en ue " t o i ss ue de cl arat or y rel ie f.

The Sch oo l Dis tri ct an d i t s em pl oyees th en m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t in

al l of th e act io ns

. The di st ric t co ur t ul ti m at el y de ni ed th e m ot io ns an d co nc lu de d th at
th e Trib al Co ur t, in fact , had juri sd ic ti on ov er t he cl ai m s. In so ho ld in g, th e di st ric t

co ur t fo un d i na pp li cab le th e Uni te d St at es Su pr em e Co ur t's de ci si on in Mon ta na v.
Uni te d St at es , 45 0 U.S. 54 4 (1 98 1)

. It fu rth er fo un d th at
, ev en if Mon ta na were

ap pl ic ab le

, th e Trib al Co ur t wou ld ne ve rth el es s ha ve juri sd ic ti on be cau se th e Sch oo l

Dis tri ct en te red in to th e Pl an s o f Ope rat io ns wit h t he Trib e.

II. Dis cu ss io n A. Tr ib al Co ur t Ju ri sd ic ti on The Sch o o l D i s t r i c t an d it s em pl oyees arg ue on ap pe al th at th e Trib al Co ur t
la ck ed juri sd ic ti on ov er th em an d, co ns eq ue nt ly, th at th e d i s tri ct co ur t erre d in

de nyin g th ei r m ot io ns fo r su m m ary ju dg m en t. W e rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t co ur t's
de ni al of su m

m ary jud gm en t. So lo mon v. Petr ay , 69 9 F.3 d 10 34

, 10 38 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. "Th e ex te nt of tri ba l co ur t su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ov er cl ai m s

ag ai ns t no nm em

be rs of th e Trib e is a qu es ti on of fed eral la w whi ch we rev ie w de

no vo ." Att or ne

y's Pro ces s & In ves ti

ga ti on Se rv s., In c. v. Sa c & Fox Tr ib e of Mis s. in

Io wa , 60 9 F .3d 92 7, 9 34 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

No fed eral st at ut e or a tre at y sp eci fic a l ly pr ov id es th e Trib al Co ur t wit h juri sd ic ti on ov er th e cl ai m s at is su e in th is cas e; th eref o r e , t h e Trib al Co ur t's juri sd ic ti on m

us t ari se fro m it s "re ta in ed or in he ren t so ve rei gn ty." Atki ns on Tr ad in g Co

., In c. v. Sh ir le

y , 53 2 U.S. 64 5, 64 9– 50 (2 00 1)

. W e an al y ze th e co nt ou rs of a tri ba l

co ur t's in he ren t juri sd ic ti on ov er no nm em be rs of th e tri be wit hi n th e fram ewo rk an d

p r i n ci pl es se t fo rth in Mon ta na , whi ch rem ai ns th e "'p at hm ark in g cas e'" on th e

su bjec t. Hick

s , 53 3 U.S. at 35 8 ( q u o t i n g S tr at e , 52 0 U.S. at 44 5)

. In Mon ta na , th e
Su pr em e Co ur t ad dr es se d whe th er a tri be co ul d pr oh ib it hu nt in g and fis hi ng act iv it ie s

-6

-by no n- In di an s on res erv at io n la nd own ed in fee si m pl e by no n- In di an s. As a ge ne ral

m at te r, th e Co ur t he ld

, "t he in he ren t so ve rei gn po wers of an In di an tri be do no t

ex te nd to th e act iv it ie s of no n m em be rs of th e tri be ." 45 0 U.S. at 56 5 (e mph as es ad de d)

. Th e Co ur t th en no te d, ho wev er, two rel at iv el y na rro w ex cep ti on s to th is

ge ne ral rul e:

To be su re, In di an tri be s ret ai n in he ren t so ve rei gn po wer t o e x e r c i se

so m e fo rm s of ci vi l juri sd ic ti on ov er no n- In di an s on th ei r res erv at io ns , ev en on no n- In di an fee la nd s. A tri be m ay reg ul at e, th ro ug h ta xa ti on , li cen si ng , or ot he r m ean s, th e ac ti vi ti es of no nme mbe rs w ho en te r

co ns en su al re la ti on sh ip s wi th th e t ri be or it s membe rs , th ro ug h

co mmerc ia l de al in g, co nt ra ct s, le as es , o r ot he r ar ra ng emen ts . A tri be

m ay al so ret ai n in he ren t po wer to ex erci s e ci vi l au th or it y ov er th e

co nd uc t of no n- In di an s on fee la nd s wit hi n it s res erv at io n w h e n t h a t

co nd uc t th re at en s or ha s so me di re ct ef fe ct on th e po li ti ca l in te

gr it y, th e

eco no mic s ecu ri ty , or

th e h ea lt h o r w el

fa re of th e tr ib e.

Id

. at 56 5– 66 (em

ph as es ad de d) (in te rn al ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. The se two cat eg or ie s of 3

no nm em be r co nd uc t th at In di an tri be s m ay reg ul at e are co m m on ly refe rred to as th e

" Mon ta na ex cep ti on s." The Co ur t in Mon ta na ul ti m at el y fo un d th at ne it her ex cep ti on

pr ov id ed th e tri be wit h juri sd ic ti on ov er no n- In di an s' hu nt in g an d fis hi ng on n o n

In di an lan d. Id

. at 56 6.

Giv en th e ge ne ral ru le se t fo rth an d ap pl ie d in Mon ta na —t ha t a tri be 's in he ren t

s o v e r ei gn po wers do no t ve st it wit h juri sd ic ti on ov er th e act iv it ie s o f

no nm em be rs —t he T ri ba l Co ur

t pr es um ab ly do es no t ha ve juri sd ic ti on ov er th e cl ai m s

as se rte d in th is cas e. "Th e bu rd en res ts on th e tri be " t o es ta bl is h th at on e of th e

The Trib al Co ur t's juri sd icti on ca nnot ex ce ed the Trib e's reg ul at or y po wer. Se e 3
S t r a t e , 52 0 U.S. at 45 3 ("As to no nm em be rs , we ho ld

, a tri be 's ad jud ic at iv e juri sd ic ti on do es no t ex ceed it s le gi sl at iv e juri sd ic ti on ."); Att or ne y's Pro ces s , 60 9 F.3 d at 9 3 6 (tr ib al co ur t juri sd ic ti on "t ur ns up on whe th er th e act io ns at is su e in th e li ti ga ti on are re gu la bl e b y th e tr ib e" (q uo ti ng Hick

s , 53 3 U.S. at 36 7 n .8))

.

-7

-Mon ta na ex cep ti on s ap pl ie s. Pla in s Co mmerc e Ban k v. Lo ng Fami ly La nd & Ca tt le

Co ., 55 4 U.S. 3 16 , 33 0 (2 00 8)

.

1. Fir st Mo nt an a Excep ti on The Sch oo l Dis tri ct ag reed to pr ov id e ed uc at io na l se rv ic es to st ud en ts res id in g

on th e Res erv at io n, as m em or ia li zed

, at le as t in pa rt, in th e Pl an s of Ope rat io ns

. Bu t
th es e ag reem en ts be twee n th e Sch oo l Dis tri ct an d th e Trib e do no t al on e co n fer juri sd ic ti on on th e Trib al Co ur t un de r th e fir st Mon ta na ex cep ti on

. Not ab ly, Nor th

Dak ot a l a w sp eci fie s th at a sc ho ol di st ric t ca nn ot "[a ]uth or iz e an ag reem en t th at

en la rg es or di m in is he s th e juri sd ic ti on ov er ci vi l or cri m in a l m at te rs th at m ay be

ex erci se d by

. . . tri b a l go ve rn m en ts lo cat ed in Nor th Dak ot a." N.D. Cen t. Co de §

54 –4 0.2 –0 8. The ag reem en ts do no t st at e th at th e Sch oo l Dis tri ct in te nd e d t o, or

rep res en te d t ha t i t co ul d, d ev ia te fro m Nort h Dak ot a la w.

Mo reo ve r, ev en as su m in g arg ue nd o th at th e Sch oo l Dis tri ct co ul d ag ree to an

ex pa ns io n of Trib al Co ur t juri sd ic t i o n u n d e r Nor th Dak ot a la w, th e fir st Mon ta na

ex cep ti on st il l wou ld no t pr ov id e th e Trib al Co ur t wit h juri sd ic ti on

. In de ed

, in Hick s, th e Su pr em e Co ur t el ab or at ed o n t h e fir st Mon ta na ex cep ti on an d sp eci fie d th at
, "[r ]ead in co nt ex t, an 'ot he r arra ng em en t' is cl earl y an ot he r pr iv at e c o n s en su al

rel at io ns hi p

. . . ." 53 3 U.S. at 35 9 n.3 (h ol di ng th at a tri ba l co ur t la ck ed juri sd ic ti on

ov er cl ai m s as se rte d ag ai n s t st at e of fic ia ls who ex ecu te d a se arch warra nt on tri ba l

la nd to se arch fo r ev id en ce of an of f-re se rv at io n cri m e). To res o l v e l i n ge rin g

am bi gu it ie s as to wha t co ns ti tu te s an "o th er arra n g e men t" un de r th e fir st Mon ta na

ex cep ti on , th e Co ur t fu rth er s ta te d t ha t:

The [ M o n t a n a ] Co ur t (th is is an op in io n, be ar in m in d, no t a st at ut e) ob vi ou sl

y di d no t ha ve in min d St at es or st at e of fi cer s ac ti ng in th ei r go ver nme nt al ca

pa ci ty ; it wa s re

fe rr in g to pr iv at e in di vi du al s wh o

vo lu nt ar il y su bmi tt ed th ems el ves to tr ib al re gu la to ry ju ri sd ic ti on by th e

a r r a n g em en ts th at th ey (o r th ei r em pl oyers) en te red in to

. Thi s i s

co nf i r med b y th e fact th at al l fo ur of th e cas es in th e im m ed ia te ly

-8

-fo ll owi ng ci ta ti on in vo lv ed pr iv at e co m m erci al act or s. Se e [ W

as hi ng to n

v. Co nf ed er at ed Tr ib es of Co lv il le In di an Rese r v a t i o n , 44 7 U.S. 13 4, 15 2 (1 98 0) ] (n on m em

be r pu rch as ers of ci ga ret te s f r om tri ba l ou tl et ); [ W il li ams v

. L e e , 3 58 U.S. 21 7 (1 95 9) ] (g en eral st or e on th e Nav ajo

res erv at io n) ; [ Mor ri s v. Hit ch co ck

, 19 4 U.S. 3 8 4 (1 90 4) ] (ran ch ers gr azi ng li ve st oc k an d ho rs es on In di an la nd s "u nd er co nt ract s wit h in di vi du al m em

be rs of sa id tri be s" ); Bus te r v. W ri gh t , 1 35 F. 94 7, 9 50 (8 th Ci r. 19 05 ) (ch al le ng e to th e "p erm it ta x" ch arg e d b y a t rib e to

no nm em be rs for "t he pri vi le ge

. . . of

tra di ng wit hi n t he bo rd ers ").

Id

. at 37 2 (e m

ph as is ad de d)

.

The Trib e m em

be rs ne ve rth el es s co nt en d th at th e req ui s i t e "co ns en su al

rel at io ns hi p" ex is te d un de r th e fir st Mon ta na ex cep ti on be cau se th e Sch oo l Dist ric t

en te red in to co nt ra ct

s (th at is , th e Pl an s o f Ope rat io ns ) wit h t he Trib e. Bu t t he y are

m is ta ke n. The Nin th an d Ten th C i r cu it s ha ve he ld th at co nt ract ua l ag reem en ts
be twee n tri be s an d go ve rn m en t en ti ti es do no t co ns ti tu te "co ns en su al rel at io ns hi ps "
wit hi n t he m ean in g o f th e fi rs t Mon ta na ex cep ti on . In Co un ty of Lewi s v. All en , for

in st an ce, t he Nin th Cir cu it , en b an c, he ld th at a tri ba l co ur t l ack ed juri sd ic ti on ov er

a tri ba l m em

be r's ci vi l cl ai m s ag ai ns t a po li ti cal su bd iv is io n of a st at e st em m in g fro m hi s arre st on res erv at io n la nd

— ev en th ou gh th e arre st was m ad e pu rs ua nt to a sp eci fic

la w en fo rcem en t co nt ract be twee n th e st at e an d th e tri be

. 16 3 F.3 d 50 9, 51 4– 16 (9 th
Ci r. 19 98 ) (en ba nc ). In so ho ld in g, th e co u r t n o t ed th at " Mon ta na ' s ex cep ti on fo r

su it s aris in g ou t of con se ns ua l re la ti on sh ip s h as ne ve r be en ex te nd ed to co nt ract ua l

ag reem en ts be twee n two go ve rn m en t en ti ti es

. . . . [T]he Agr eem en t be twee n th e tri be

an d th e st at e is no t a "'co ns en su al rel at io n s h i p' of th e qu al ifyin g ki nd ." Id

. at 51 5 (q uo ta ti on m ark s om it te d) (q uo ti ng St ra te , 52 0 U.S. at 45 7)

. Lik ewis e, in Mac Art hu r

v. Sa n Jua n Co un ty , th e Ten th Ci rcu it he ld th at em pl oym en t rela ti on sh ip s th at were
"co nt ract ua l in na tu re" be twee n a st at e's po li ti cal su bd iv is io n an d two tri be m em be rs
"wer e no t '

pr iv at e co ns en su al rel at io ns hi ps '

. . . an d [th eref or e] do no t fal l wit hi n th e fir st Mon ta na ex cep ti on ." 4 97 F.3d 10 57 , 10 71 , 10 74 (10 th Cir . 20 07 ).

-9

-Mo re rece nt ly, in Red Mes a Uni fi ed Sc h o o l D is tr ic t v. Y el lo wh ai r , a di st ric t

c o u rt reac he d th e sa m e co nc lu si on in a cas e rem ark ab ly s im il ar to th is cas e

. Th e r e , two sc h o o l d i s tri ct s op erat in g on In di an res erv at io ns fil ed fo r de cl arat or y an d

in jun ct iv e rel ie f in fed eral co ur t to pr oh ib it a tri ba l ad m in i s t r a ti ve tri bu na l fro m de ci di ng em

pl oym en t

- r e l a t ed cl ai m s fil ed ag ai ns t th e sc ho ol di st ric ts

. No.

C V

- 0 9

- 8 07 1- PCT-PGR

, 20 10 W L 38 55 18 3, at *2 (D. Ariz

. Sep t. 28

, 20 10 ). The

co ur t gr an te d th e rel ie f an d sp eci fic al ly fo un d th at th e fir st Mon ta na ex cep ti on di d no t

ap pl y —n ot wit hs ta nd i n g a l eas e ag reem en t be twee n th e sc ho ol di st ric ts an d th e tri be —b ecau se th e sc ho ol di st ric ts "m ad e th e em pl o y m en t de ci si on s at is su e whi le

o p e r a t i n g i n t h e i r g o v e r n m e n t a l c a p a c i t i e s p u r s u a n t t o t h e i r s t a t e

co ns ti tu ti on al ly-im

po se d m an da te t o o p e rat e a pu bl ic sc ho ol syste m wit hi n th e

res erv at io n b ou nd ari es ." Id

. at *3

.

W e ag ree wit h th es e well -rea so ne d de ci si on s. The Sch oo l Dis tri ct in th is cas e

was cl earl y a c t i n g in it s of fic ia l cap aci ty an d, sp eci fic al ly, in fu rth eran ce of it s ob li ga ti on s un de r th e Co ns ti tu ti on of Nor th Dak ot a to m ak e pu bl ic ed uc at io n "o pe n

to al l ch il dr en of th e st at e of Nor th Dak ot a," se e N.D. Co ns t. art

. VIII, § 1, whe n it

en te red in to th e ag reem en ts rel ev an t to th is cas e. The ag reem en ts th eref or e do no t fal l

wit hi n t he am

bi t o f th e fi rs t Mon ta na ex cep ti on

. 4

2. Se co nd Mo nt an a Excep ti on
Bec au se th ere is no pr iva te co ns en su al rel at io ns hi p be twee n th e Sch oo l Dis tri ct

a n d t he Trib e, th e Trib al Co ur t wil l ha ve juri sd ic ti on on ly if th e cl ai m s at i s s u e in vo lv e "co nd uc t [th at ] th reat en s or has so m e di rect effe ct on th e po li ti cal in te gr it y , th e eco no m ic se cu rit y , o r th e he al th or welf are of th e tri be ." Mon ta na , 45 0 U.S. at

To be cl ear, we are no t ru li ng ou t th e po ss ib il it y th at a st at e an d a tri be co ul d 4

en te r in to an ag reem en t th at co nf ers juri sd ic ti on up on th e tri be —s uc h as an ag reem en t th at ex pr es sl y pr ov id es fo r su ch juri sd ic ti on

. Bu t no su ch ag reem en t is at is su e in th e in st an t ca se

.

-1 0-56 6. In co nd uc t i n g t h i s an al y si s, we no te at th e ou ts et th at no t ev ery ev en t th at

im pa ct s a tri be 's po li t i c al in te gr it y , eco no m ic se cu rit y , he al th

, or welf are wil l

n e c e s s a r il y gi ve ris e to tri ba l co ur t juri sd ic ti on ; in de ed

, a la x ap pl ic at io n or ov erl y br oa d read in g of th e se co nd Mon ta na ex cep ti on wou ld ren de r m eaningl es s M on ta na 's

ge ne ral ru le th at "t he in he ren t s ov erei gn po wers of an In di an tri be do no t ex te nd to
th e act iv it ie s of no nm em

be rs of th e tri be ." Id

. at 56 5. The Co ur t in Hick s em ph as iz ed

t h e ne ces sa ril y na rro w sc op e of th e se co nd Mon ta na ex cep ti on whe n it co nf i r med

th at
, "[w]her e no nm em

be rs are co nc ern ed

, th e 'ex erci se of tri ba l po wer be yo nd wh at

is ne ces sa ry to pr ot ect tr ib al se lf -g ov er nme nt or to c o n t ro l in te rn al re la ti on s is

in co ns is te nt wit h th e de pe n d e n t st at us of th e tri be s, an d so can no t su rv iv e wit ho ut

ex pr es s co ng res si on al de le ga ti on .'" 53 3 U.S. at 35 9 (q uo ti ng Mon ta na , 45 0 U.S. at
56 4) ; se e al

so Pla in s Co mmerc e Ban k

, 5 5 4 U

. S

. at 33 0 (n ot in g th at th e Mon ta na

ex cep ti on s "ar e li mi t e d o n e s, an d can no t be co ns tru ed in a m an ne r th at wou ld

swa ll ow t he rul e, or sev erel y sh rin k i t" ) (q uo ta ti on s o m it te d)

.

In Pla in s Co mmerc e Ban k

, th e Co ur t fu rth e r e lu ci da te d th e ci rcu m st an ces

ne ces sa ry fo r th e se co nd Mon ta na ex cep ti on to ap pl y

. The re, th e Co ur t he ld th at th e

se co nd Mon ta na ex cep ti on di d n o t a p p l y t o a no n- In di an ba nk 's sa le of la nd on a tri ba l re se rv at io n t o a no th er n on -In di an be cau se :

The co nd uc t m

us t do m or e th an in

jure t h e tri be

, it m

us t " imp er il th e

su bs is te nc e " of th e tri ba l co m m un it y

. [ Mon ta na , 45 0 U.S. at 56 6]. One

co m m en ta to r ha s no te d th at "t h[ e] el ev at ed th res ho ld fo r ap pl ic at io n of th e se co nd Mon ta na ex ce p t io n su gg es ts th at tri ba l po wer m us t be

ne ces sa ry to av er t ca ta st ro ph ic co ns eq ue nc es ." Co he n § 4 .02 [3 ][c] , at 23 2, n .22 0.

Id . at 3 41 (em

ph as es ad de d)

. 5

Of co ur se , th e tra ns act io n at is su e in Pla in s Co mmerc e Ba n k in vo lv ed la nd 5 th at no n- In di an s o wne d i n fe e si m pl e bo th be fo re an d a fte r th e tr an sa ct io n, an d t hi s

-1 1-The cl ai m s an d al le ge d co nd uc t at is su e in th is cas e cl earl y do no t "i m pe ril th e

su bs is te nc e" of th e Trib e, an d Trib al Co ur t juri sd ic ti on is no t "n eces sa ry to av ert

cat as tro ph ic co ns eq ue nc es ." Oth er co ur ts ha ve fo un d th e se co nd Mon ta na ex cep ti on i na pp li cab le to co nd uc t th at was ei th er co m pa rab le or m or e de tri m en ta l to a tri b e ' s

su bs is te nc e an d wel l-b ei ng th an th e co nd uc t al le ge d i n t hi s ca se

. 6

co ur t is aware th at "[t ]he own ers hi p st at us of la nd " is "o ne fact or to co ns id e r in de te rm in in g whe th er reg ul at io n of th e act iv it ie s of no nm em be rs is ' ne ces sa ry to
pr ot ect tri ba l se lf- gove rn

m ent or to co nt ro l in te rn al rel at io ns .'" Hick s , 53 3 U.S. at 36 0. As no te d ab ov e, ho wev er, th ere is sc an t ev id en ce in th e reco rd wha t, if an y , la nd an d faci li ti es rel e v a n t t o t h is cas e were own ed by th e Trib e. Nev ert he le ss , ev en if th e Trib e own ed al l of th e la nd an d faci li ti es rel ev an t to th is cas e— whi ch is no t

su pp o r t e d b y th e reco rd

— Mon ta na wou ld st il l ap pl y , se e Att or ne y's Pro ces s , 60 9 F.3 d a t 9 35 –4 1, an d o ur an al y si s wo ul d n ot ch an ge for th e rea so ns st at ed he rei n.

Se e Ev a n s v

. Sh os ho ne -Ban no ck La nd Use Pol ic y Co mm'n

, 73 6 F.3 d 12 98

, 6
13 05 (9 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (h ol di ng t h a t th e se co nd Mon ta na ex cep ti on di d no t ap pl y to

no n- In di an c o n d u ct th at al le ge dl y cau se d, am on g ot he r th in gs , "g ro un dwa te r

co nta m ina tio n" an d "i m

pr ope r dis posal of co ns tru ct io n de br is "); Mac Art hu r, 497 F. 3d

at 10 75 (h ol di n g th at "[w]hi le th e Nav ajo Nati on un do ub te dl y ha s an in te res t in

reg ul at in g em

pl oym en t rel at io ns hi ps be twee n it s m em be rs an d no n- In di an em

pl oyers

on th e res erv at io n, th at in te res t is no t so su bs ta n t i a l i n t hi s cas e as to affe ct th e N a t i o n ' s rig ht to m ak e it s own la ws an d be go ve rn ed by th em "); All en , 16 3 F

. 3 d a t 51 5– 16 (9 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (en ba nc ) ("Ha vi ng di ve st ed i t s e l f o f so ve rei gn ty ov er th e

ve ry act iv it ie s th at ga ve ris e to th e ci vi l cl ai m , no th in g in th i s c a s e c a n be se en as th reat en in g se lf- go ve rn m en t or th e po li ti cal in te gr it y , ec onom ic se cu rit y or he al th an d welf are of th e tri be

. . . . In di an tri be s or th e i r memb e r s

. . . m ay pu rs ue th ei r cau se s of act io n in st at e or fed eral co ur t." ); Ott er T a i l Po w e r C o. v. Leec h La ke Ban d of Oji bw e , No. 11 -1 07 0 DW F/ LIB, 20 11 W L 24 90 82 0, at *5 (D. Mi nn

. Ju ne 22

, 20 11 ) (h ol di ng th at th e se co nd Mon ta na ex cep ti on di d no t ap pl y to no nm em be r co nd uc t th at

wou ld in te rfer e wit h th e tri be 's "h un ti ng , fis hi ng , an d ga th eri ng rig ht s" ); Dol ge nc or p In c. v. Mis s. Band of Ch oc ta w Ind ia ns , 84 6 F. Sup p. 2 d 6 46 , 65 0 (S .D. Mis s. 20 11 ) (h ol di ng th at th e se co nd Mon ta na ex cep ti on di d no t ap pl y to a cas e in whi ch a

no nm em be r of th e tri be al le ge dl y m ol es te d a m in or tri be m em be r), af f'd

, 74 6 F.3 d 16 7 (5 th Cir . 20 14 ).

-1 2-In su m , th e Trib e m em be rs ha ve fai le d to carr y th ei r bu rd en of es ta bl is hi ng th at
ei th er of th e Mon ta na ex cep ti on s ap pl y

. W e th eref or e ho ld t h a t t h e Trib al Co ur t
la ck ed juri sd ic ti on ov er t he Trib e m em be rs ' cla im s.

B. Defa ul t Ju dg men t
The Sch oo l Dis tri ct an d it s em pl oyees al so co nt en d th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d

in no t gr an ti ng th ei r m ot io n fo r de fau lt jud gm en t in th e Nel so n act io n. W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t's de ci si on fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Ta yl or v. Ci ty of

Bal lw in

, Mo.

, 85 9

F.2 d 1 33 0, 1 33 2 (8 th Cir . 19 88 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

"Th e Fed eral Ru le s of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e co m m it th e en try of a de fau lt jud gm en t

a g a i n s t a pa rty to th e so un d di sc ret io n of th e tri al co ur t." F.T.C. v. Pac ker s Bra n d

Mea ts

, In c. , 56 2 F.2 d 9, 10 (8 th Ci r. 19 77 ) (p er cu ria m ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d) ; se e al so Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 55 (b )(2 ). Thi s co ur t ha s reco gn iz ed th at de fau lt jud gm en ts are "n ot
fav or ed by t he la w a nd sh ou ld be a rare jud ic ia l a c t

. " In re Jo ne s Tr uc k Li ne s, In c. , 63 F.3 d 68 5, 68 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (ci ta ti on s an d qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Pu t si m pl y , th ere is a "jud ic ia l pr efer en ce fo r ad jud ic at io n on th e m eri ts ." Jo hn so n v. Day to n Elec

. Mfg

. Co

. , 14 0 F.3 d 78 1, 78 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (ci ta ti on s an d qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

.

The re are va rio us fact or s co ur ts m ay co ns id er whe n de te rm in in g whe th er to

en te r a d efau lt jud gm en t, i nc lu di ng :

[T]he am ou nt of m on ey po te nt ia ll y in vo lv ed ; whe th er m at eri al is su es of fact or is su es of su bs ta nt ia l pu bl ic im po rta nc e are at is su e; whe th er th e de fau lt is la rg el y te ch ni cal ; whe th er pl ai nt if f ha s be en su bs ta nt ia ll y pr ejud ic ed by t he de la y in vo lv ed ; an d whe th er th e gr ou nd s f o r d e fau lt

are cl earl y es ta bl is he d o r a r e in do ub t. Fu rth erm or e, th e co ur t m ay

co ns id er ho w ha rs h an effe ct a de fau lt jud gm en t m ig ht ha ve ; or whe th er th e de fau lt was cau se d by a go od -fai th m is ta ke or by ex cu sa bl e or in ex cu sa bl e n eg le ct on th e p art of t he de fen da nt

.

-1 3-Br i a rp at ch Lt d., L.P. v. Geis le r Rob er de au , In c ., 51 3 F. Su pp

. 2d 1, 3 (S.D.N.Y

.

20 07 ) (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

In li gh t of th es e co ns id erat io ns an d th e jud ic ia l pr efer en ce fo r ad jud ic at io n on th e m eri ts
, we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g th e m ot io n fo r de fau lt jud gm en t. In pa rti cu la r, we no te th at th e sc op e of Trib al Co ur t juri sd ic ti on was a cen tra l is su e in each of th e act io ns br ou gh t by th e Sch oo l Dis tri ct

an d it s em pl oyees— in cl ud in g th e Nel so n act io n— an d th at th e di st ric t co ur t is su ed it s

op in io n wit h res pe ct to Trib al Co ur t juri sd ic ti on sh or tl y aft er de nyin g th e m ot io n fo r de fau lt jud gm en t. It was well wit hi n th e di st ric t co ur t's di sc ret io n to ch oo se to res ol ve al l o f th e act io ns in th e sa m e o rd er.

III. Co nc lu si on
Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, and aft er tho ro ug hl y co ns id eri ng al l of the pa rti es '

co nt en ti on s on ap pe al

, we rev ers e th e di st ric t cou rt' s de ci si on wit h res pe ct to Trib al

Co ur t juri sd ic ti on an d rem an d fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs

. W e affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t's
de ni al of d efau lt jud gm en t i n t he Nel so n act io n.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 4-