Opinion ID: 2830797
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Williams v. Lee

Text: [¶18] We begin with Williams and its progeny. In Williams, the Supreme Court held that a state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a collection action brought by a non-Indian store owner against tribal members who lived on the reservation where the store was located. Williams, 358 U.S at 217-18, 79 S.Ct. at 269. In so holding, the Court announced what has become known as the Williams infringement test: “Essentially, absent governing Acts of Congress, the question has always been whether the state action infringed on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them.” Id., 358 U.S. at 220; 79 S.Ct. at 271. In applying the test to the facts before it, the Court reasoned: There can be no doubt that to allow the exercise of state jurisdiction here would undermine the authority of the tribal courts over Reservation affairs and hence would infringe on the right of the Indians to govern themselves. It is immaterial that respondent is not an Indian. He was on the Reservation and the transaction with an Indian took place there. Cf. Donnelly v. United States, supra; Williams v. United States, supra. The cases in this Court have consistently guarded the authority of Indian governments over their reservations. Congress recognized this authority in the Navajos in the Treaty of 1868, and has done so ever since. If this power is to be taken away from them, it is for Congress to do it. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 564-566, 23 S.Ct. 216, 220221, 47 L.Ed. 299. Williams, 358 U.S. at 223, 79 S.Ct. at 272. [¶19] The Williams test applies primarily in matters where a non-Indian is involved or non-Indian interests are implicated. McClanahan, 411 U.S. at 179, 93 S.Ct. at 1266. In McClanahan, the Court explained: It must be remembered that cases applying the Williams test have dealt principally with situations involving non-Indians. See also Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U.S., at 7576, 82 S.Ct., at 570-571. In these situations, both the tribe and the State could fairly claim an interest in asserting their respective jurisdictions. The Williams test was designed to resolve this conflict by providing that the State could protect its interest up to the point where tribal self-government would be affected. 7 McClanahan, 411 U.S. at 179, 93 S.Ct. at 1266; but see Fisher v. Dist. Court of Sixteenth Judicial Dist. of Montana, 424 U.S. 382, 386, 96 S.Ct. 943, 946, 47 L.Ed.2d 106 (1976) (acknowledging that Williams test generally applies where case involves a non-Indian, but nonetheless applying the analysis to reject state court jurisdiction over adoption proceeding where all parties were tribal members living on reservation). [¶20] In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court clarified that the Williams analysis requires a two-part inquiry: Congress has broad power to regulate tribal affairs under the Indian Commerce Clause, Art. 1, § 8, cl. 3. See United States v. Wheeler, supra, at 322-323, 98 S.Ct., at 1085–1086. This congressional authority and the “semi-independent position” of Indian tribes have given rise to two independent but related barriers to the assertion of state regulatory authority over tribal reservations and members. First, the exercise of such authority may be pre-empted by federal law. See, e.g., Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Comm’n, 380 U.S. 685, 85 S.Ct. 1242, 14 L.Ed.2d 165 (1965); McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, supra. Second, it may unlawfully infringe “on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them.” Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 220, 79 S.Ct. 269, 271, 3 L.Ed.2d 251 (1959). See also Washington v. Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463, 502, 99 S.Ct. 740, 762, 58 L.Ed.2d 740 (1979); Fisher v. District Court, 424 U.S. 382, 96 S.Ct. 943, 47 L.Ed.2d 106 (1976) (per curiam ); Kennerly v. District Court of Montana, 400 U.S. 423, 91 S.Ct. 480, 27 L.Ed.2d 507 (1971). The two barriers are independent because either, standing alone, can be a sufficient basis for holding state law inapplicable to activity undertaken on the reservation or by tribal members. White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136, 142-43, 100 S.Ct. 2578, 2580, 65 L.Ed.2d 665 (1980) (footnote omitted); see also Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Eng’g, P.C., 467 U.S. 138, 147, 104 S.Ct. 2267, 2274, 81 L.Ed.2d 113 (1984) (state may exercise jurisdiction so long as it is not preempted by incompatible federal law and does not infringe on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them). [¶21] Although White Mountain applied the two-part Williams analysis to a state’s exercise of regulatory authority, and thus couched the analysis as one applying to an assertion of regulatory jurisdiction, it is clear that the analysis applies equally to state 8 assertions of adjudicatory jurisdiction. See, e.g., Three Affiliated Tribes, 467 U.S. at 14851, 104 S.Ct. at 2274-76 (state court jurisdiction over tribe’s claims against non-Indian contractor would not run afoul of Williams); Fisher, 424 U.S. at 387-88, 96 S.Ct. at 947 (rejecting state court jurisdiction over adoption proceeding where all parties were tribal members living on reservation). In either case, whether a state is asserting regulatory or adjudicatory jurisdiction, the required analysis examines whether the exercise of state jurisdiction will interfere with federal objectives or tribal self government. See White Mountain, 448 U.S. at 145-48, 100 S.Ct. at 2585-86 (rejecting state license and use taxes on non-Indian logging corporations operating solely on reservation based on Interior Secretary’s extensive authority to promulgate rules governing the harvest and sale of reservation timber and the related purpose of promoting self-sustaining tribal communities); Fisher, 424 U.S. at 387-90, 96 S.Ct. at 947-48 (finding state court jurisdiction over adoption proceeding where all parties were tribal members would infringe on tribal self government and was preempted by overriding federal policy contained in Indian Reorganization Act); Three Affiliated Tribes, 467 U.S. at 140, 104 S.Ct at 2270 (holding that state court jurisdiction over tribe's breach of contract action against its non-Indian contractor would not infringe on tribe’s right to self government and was not preempted by requirements of federal law governing state jurisdiction). [¶22] In summary, Williams and its progeny stand for the rule that a state may assert jurisdiction over an activity or a dispute involving a non-Indian and arising within the boundaries of a tribal reservation if: 1) the state’s exercise of authority is not preempted by incompatible federal law; and 2) the state’s exercise of authority does not infringe on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them. Three Affiliated Tribes, 467 U.S. at 147, 104 S.Ct. at 2274 (citing Williams, 358 U.S. at 220, 79 S.Ct. at 270; White Mountain, 448 U.S. at 142, 100 S.Ct. at 2583). As the Supreme Court has observed, “The upshot has been the repeated statements of this Court to the effect that, even on reservations, state laws may be applied unless such application would interfere with reservation self-government or would impair a right granted or reserved by federal law.” Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145, 148, 93 S.Ct. 1267, 1270, 36 L.Ed.2d 114 (1973) (citations omitted). [¶23] When considering the limitations on state court jurisdiction over matters potentially implicating both state and tribal interests, it is clear that the governing analysis has long been and continues to be the Williams test. Indeed, our Court and numerous other state jurisdictions have applied and continue to apply the Williams test to determine the extent of state court jurisdiction over actions involving tribal members. See, e.g., Boller, 829 P.2d at 261-63 (applying Williams analysis to uphold state court jurisdiction over non-Indian bank’s foreclosure action against tribal member); Peterson, 617 P.2d at 1061 (applying Williams test to reject state court jurisdiction over action arising from vehicle accident occurring on reservation); Outsource Serv. Mgmt., LLC v. Nooksack Bus. Corp., 333 P.3d 380, 382-83 (Wash. 2014) (applying Williams test to allow state court jurisdiction over non-Indian plaintiff’s action to enforce contract against tribal entity 9 where contract was entered into on reservation and tribal entity consented to state court jurisdiction under terms of contract); Gustafson v. Estate of Poitra, 2011 ND 150, ¶ 10, 800 N.W.2d 842, 846-47 (ND 2011) (applying Williams test to reject state court jurisdiction over property dispute brought by non-Indian against tribal member concerning tribe-owned property located partially within reservation); In re Estate of Big Spring, 2011 MT 109, ¶ 50, 255 P.3d 121, 134-35 (Mont. 2011) (applying Williams test to reject Montana state court jurisdiction over probate action involving only tribal members and property located within reservation); Risse v. Meeks, 1998 SD 112, ¶ 11, 585 N.W.2d 875, 877 (S.D. 1998) (applying Williams test to allow state court jurisdiction over non-Indian plaintiff’s action against tribal members for damage caused to land outside reservation by trespass of defendants’ cattle but rejecting state court jurisdiction over punitive damages claim related to fencing within reservation boundaries); Begay v. Roberts, 807 P.2d 1111, 1114, 1116-17 (Az. Ct. App. 1990) (applying Williams test to allow state court jurisdiction over action by non-Indian plaintiff against tribal member for breach of vehicle purchase contract entered off reservation but rejecting state court jurisdiction to enter garnishment order against tribal member’s wages earned on reservation); Wells v. Wells, 451 N.W.2d 402, 405-06 (S.D. 1990) (applying Williams test to uphold state court jurisdiction over wife’s divorce action against husband where both parties were tribal members but wife resided outside reservation); Powell v. Farris, 620 P.2d 525, 527-28 (Wash. 1980) (applying Williams test to uphold state court jurisdiction over a non-Indian’s action against tribal member seeking partnership dissolution and accounting for business located on tribal trust land and licensed by tribal council); State Sec., Inc. v. Anderson, 506 P.2d 786, 788-89 (N.M. 1973) (applying Williams test to uphold state court jurisdiction over a non-Indian’s breach of contract action against tribal member where contract entered into outside reservation). [¶24] Although the Williams test is controlling in determining whether the district court properly assumed jurisdiction over the present case, we also must consider the principles announced by the Supreme Court in its 1981 decision in Montana, and the Montana line of cases. These cases are relevant to our analysis because, although they address tribal sovereignty from the perspective of limitations on tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians, rather than limitations on state jurisdiction, their holdings closely parallel the Williams analysis and inform the application of that analysis. See, e.g., Cordova, 971 P.2d at 537 (recognizing overlap of Williams and Montana analyses and describing them as “merely different formulations of the same underlying concept”). We turn then to the Montana line of cases.