Source: https://www.modrall.com/2016/08/17/equally-divided-united-states-supreme-court-affirms-tribal-jurisdiction-over-tort-claims-against-nonmembers/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:13:37+00:00

Document:
On June 23, 2016 the Supreme Court issued its much anticipated decision in Dollar General Corporation v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians1 The one sentence per curiam opinion by an equally divided Court affirmed the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit which concluded that a tribal court had jurisdiction over tribal members’ tort action against a nonmember defendant.2 The per curiam affirmance leaves in place the Fifth Circuit’s decision. The Court’s decision does not give the Fifth Circuit’s decision greater precedential authority, but it stands as a marker of what divides the current eight-member Court.
Dollar General arose from the alleged abuse of a tribal youth by a manager of a Dollar General store located on the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians’ (the Band) Reservation in Mississippi. The alleged victim was a participant in the Band’s internship program, which placed tribal youth in local businesses to get work experience. The accused store manager had agreed on behalf of Dollar General to participate in the internship program with the Band. The youth, “John Doe” in the pleadings, filed suit in tribal court seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Dollar General moved to dismiss on grounds that the tribal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case under the Supreme Court’s decision in Montana v. United States.3 The tribal court denied the motion to dismiss, and the tribal court of appeals affirmed. Dollar General then filed suit in the District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi which denied Dollar General’s motion to dismiss under Montana. A divided Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Interestingly, just days after issuing its per curiam affirmance in Dollar General the Supreme Court denied certiorari in EXC Inc. v. Jensen,8 a case in which the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit narrowly construed the Montana exceptions in a case arising from injury to Navajo Nation members in a vehicular collision with a nonmember charter bus on a state highway on the Navajo Nation Reservation.
1. Dollar Gen. Corp. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, 579 U.S. ___ , 135 S. Ct. 2159 (June 23, 2016) (per curiam). Dollar Gen. Corp. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, 579 U.S. ___ , 135 S. Ct. 2159 (June 23, 2016) (per curiam).
2. Dolgencorp, Inc. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, 746 F.3d 167, (5th Cir. 2014).
3. 450 U.S. 544 (1981).
5. Dolgencorp, Inc., 746 F.3d at 173-75.
6. Id. at 174 n.4.
7. Modrall Sperling filed a brief amicus curiae in Dollar General on behalf of the Association of American Railroads.
8. EXC Inc. v. Jensen, 588 Fed. Appx. 720 (9th Cir. 2014) (unpublished), cert. denied, U.S.L.W. 84 USLW 3062 (June 28, 2016).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.