Opinion ID: 1813112
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Under Federal Law, the Coushatta Tribal Court has Jurisdiction to Determine this Dispute

Text: The first question in an Exhaustion analysis is whether the Coushatta Tribal Court has the requisite jurisdiction to decide a case involving a non-Indian. Generally, absent express authorization by federal statute or treaty, tribal jurisdiction over the conduct of nonmembers exists only in limited circumstances. Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438, 445, 117 S.Ct. 1404, 1409, 137 L.Ed.2d 661 (1997). Moreover, the inherent sovereign powers of an Indian tribe  those powers that a tribe enjoys apart from and in addition to those powers expressly granted by treaty or statute  generally do not extend to the activities of nonmembers. Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 565, 101 S.Ct. 1245, 1258, 67 L.Ed.2d 493 (1981). Nonetheless, Indian tribes retain inherent sovereign power to exercise some forms of civil jurisdiction over non-Indians on their reservations. Id. Specifically, a tribe may regulate the activities of (1) nonmembers who enter consensual relationships with the tribe through commercial dealings, contracts, leases or other arrangements, and (2) nonmembers whose conduct within the reservation threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, economic security or health or welfare of the tribe. Id. at 565-66, 101 S.Ct. at 1258. In the instant case, it is undisputed that Meyer entered into a consensual, commercial and contractual relationship with the Tribe. Consequently, I would find that, under federal law, the Tribal Court has jurisdiction over Meyer in the instant case.