Legal Document

476 U.S. 877 106 S.Ct. 2305 90 L.Ed.2d 881 THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES OF the FORT BERTHOLD RESERVATION, Petitionerv.WOLD ENGINEERING et al. No. 84-1973. Argued March 24, 1986. Decided June 16, Syllabus Petitioner Indian tribe brought suit against respondent corporation (hereafter respondent) in a North Dakota state court for negligence and breach of contract connection with respondent's construction water-supply system on petitioner's reservation. The trial dismissed lack jurisdiction. Supreme Court held that statute (Chapter 27-19)—which provides jurisdiction State shall be extended over all civil claims relief arise an reservation upon acceptance by citizens disclaimed unconditional had previously to tribal Indians suing non-Indians court, Chapter 27-19 barred petitioner from maintaining its absent waiver sovereign immunity. Held: 1. Because federal governing assumption country, Pub.L. 280, was designed extend States country encourage such jurisdiction, because Congress specifically considered issue retrocession but did not provide disclaimers lawfully acquired other than under 280 prior 1968, cannot reconciled congressional plan embodied thus are pre-empted. Pp. 884-887. 2. conclusion operation jurisdictional scheme this case is inconsistent law reinforced fact it imposes undue burden interests self-government autonomy, as well interest ensuring access courts. 887-893. 364 N.W.2d 98, reversed remanded. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion Court, which BURGER, C.J., WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, filed dissenting opinion, BRENNAN STEVENS, joined, post, p. 893. Raymond Cross, Boulder, Colo., petitioner. Gary H. Lee, Bismarck, N.D., respondents. Justice O'CONNOR Court. 1 Petitioner, Three Affiliated Tribes Fort Berthold Reservation, sought sue respondent, Wold Engineering, P.C. respondent), contract. Century Code (1974) court. It ruled 27-19, could avail itself unless consented waive immunity have any disputes party adjudicated law. 98 (1985). question presented whether construed repugnant Federal Constitution or pre-empted 2 * This second time has been called address controversy. See v. Engineering (Three I), 467 138, 104 2267, 81 113 (1984) I ). facts procedural history litigation were set forth some detail I, our present recitation will brief. 3 Historically, territories generally deemed beyond legislative judicial governments. id., at 142, S.Ct., 2271. restriction reflected admitted Union, Enabling Act Feb. 22, 1889, § 4, cl. 2, 25 Stat. 677, form Dakota's original Constitution. N.D. Const., Art. XVI, 203, (1889). pre-existing restrictions largely eliminated, however, 1953 Congress' enactment Aug. 15, 1953, 67 588, amended, 28 U.S.C. 1360, commonly known Public Law 280. gave consent criminal provided procedures made. supra, 143, 2271-2272. As originally enacted, require obtain affected tribes before assuming them, Title IV Civil Rights 1968 amended subsequent assertions preceded consent. 90-284, §§ 401, 402, 406, 82 78-80, codified 1321, 1322, 1326. explained I: 4 "Even moved amend assume full taken expansive view scope state-court country. In 1957, [in Vermillion Spotted Elk, 85 432 (1957) ] existing State's foreclosed only cases involving lands themselves." U.S., 143-144, 2272. 5 Although (1957), decided after made clear confirming rather establishing unavailable category. Id., 435-436. also 150, n. 9, 2275, 9. 6 That part recognized non-Indians' impermissibly intruded sustained. 148, 2274. Fisher District 424 382, 96 943, 47 (1976); Williams 358 217, 79 269, 251 (1959). But, affirmed, recognition plaintiffs non-Indian defendants lawful interfere right govern themselves subject 280's requirements since assumed enactment. 148-149, 151, 11, 2274-2275, 2276, 11. 7 1958, authorize legislature see XIII, 1, 1963, Legislature enacted 27-19. provides, pertinent part: 8 "In accordance provisions . [the amended] constitution, manner chapter. Upon same extent relief, those laws general application private property force effect within they elsewhere state." N.D.Cent.Code 27-19-01 (Supp.1985). 9 cases, read provision "completely disclaim" defendant Indian, statute. See, e.g., re Whiteshield, 124 694 (1963). However, until instant suit, never squarely sued claim arising 144-145, 2272-2273. 10 At filed, claims. After counterclaiming alleged failure make payments system, dismiss complaint, arguing no Reservation affirmed dismissal appeal. 321 510 (1982). 11 so doing, residuary courts possessed suits "totally disclaimed" when Legislature, "[u]nder authority 280," instituted requirement N.W.2d, 511-512. concluded "we causes action exterior boundaries reservation, vote accept jurisdiction." 512. rejected constitutional challenges, relying argument discrimination litigants authorized therefore insulated, Washington Yakima Nation, 439 463, 99 740, 58 L.Ed.3d 740 (1979), heightened scrutiny. 512-513. 12 granted certiorari. 461 904, 103 1872, 76 805 (1983). We preclude asserting claim. particular, we neither required nor disclaim exercised 2275. Court's interpretation accompanying analysis appeared rest possible misunderstanding vacated judgment remanded allow reconsider questions light proper 141, 2270. 13 On remand, terminated may existed 104. further statutory procedures. 103-104. Finally, due process equal protection challenges. stated denied State, reasoning people who deprived declining offer waiving their 106. then disclaimer violate Equal Protection Clause because, virtue provision, "[t]he does treat Tribe] less equal, treats them more equal." 107. 14 certiorari examine violates objected consideration pre-emption issue, briefed merits, review proceedings below indicates explicitly raised before, circumstances there "weighty presumption review." Heath Alabama, 474 82, 87, 433, 436, 88 387 Illinois Gates, 462 213, 218-222, 2317, 2321-2324, 527 believe, overcome instance combination circumstances. 15 First, raise challenge cf. Oklahoma City Tuttle, 471 808, 815-816, 105 2427, 2431-2432, 791 (1985), apparent willingness decided, argues review. Second, already sent back once, reluctant resolving addressed parties. Since twice benefit closely aligned issues, do believe disservice litigants, impairs informed decision issue. 16 insofar applied forum, Tribe's party, reverse. II 17 Our reveal " 'trend away idea inherent sovereignty a[n independent] bar toward reliance pre-emption.' Rice Rehner, 463 713, 718, 3291, 3295, 77 961 (1983) (quoting McClanahan Arizona Tax Comm'n, 411 164, 172, 93 1257, 1262, 36 129 (1973) (footnote omitted)). Yet considerations sovereignty, promoting self-governance if sufficient "pre-empt" regulation, nevertheless important backdrop applicable treaties statutes must read. New Mexico Mescalero Apache Tribe, 324, 334, 2378, 2386, 611 (1983); 718-719, 3295-3296. Accordingly, formulated comprehensive inquiry context examines plan, "the nature state, federal, stake, determine whether, specific context, exercise would law." White Mountain Tribe Bracker, 448 136, 145, 100 2578, 2584, 65 665 (1980). case, yields forecloses disclaiming further, advanced overshadowed longstanding interests. A. 18 represents primary expression policy Nations. result "comprehensive detailed scrutiny," Kennerly Montana, 400 423, 424, 427, 91 480, 481, 482, 27 507 (1971), intended replace ad hoc regulation legislation, providing "for come terms." S.Rep. 699, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., (1953), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News pp. 2409, 2412. Goldberg, 280: Limits Jurisdiction Indians, 22 UCLA L.Rev. 535, 540-544 (1975). examining legislation matters this, "our narrow focus intent pre-empt sole touchstone. They proposition requires 'an express statement effect.' 2386 144, 2584) omitted). 719, 3295. Rather, found where regulatory exists thrust impaired incompatible action, without more, Warren Trading Post Co. 380 685, 1242, 165 (1965). 19 Given comprehensiveness area law, assumption, disclaimer, persuasive evidence conflicts scheme. But need alone, treatment permits doubt 20 plainly contemplated that, chose honor commitment, return United States. F. Cohen, Handbook 370 (1982) (hereinafter Cohen). fully consistent purposes underlying gradual assimilation into dominant American culture easing fiscal administrative borne Government control affairs. 542-544. H.R.Rep. 848, 3, (1953). Were permitted, option time, retrocede leave recourse wrongs, steady disrupted divestment dominance nullified. 21 When subsequently revisited amendments, State," 1323(a), limited authorization pursuant version ibid. (permitting "acquired [the] section 1162 title 18, Code, 1360 28, August (67 588), repeal subsection (b) section"). Exec. Order 11435, CFR 754 (1966-1970 Comp.) (giving Secretary Interior discretionary State); 558-559. apparently added response dissatisfaction Cohen 370. purpose, attributed mere oversight inadvertence. motivated desire shield unwanted extensions self-government, see, (1959), secured receipt 1321. not, indeed attempted to, rely 1323(a) specified accepted retrocession. enforced quite stringently, understanding product wide-ranging study. 482. 484, 753 ("the strictly followed"); 180, 1266. conclude section. 23 sum, it. B 24 pre-existing, defendants, replacing extension conditioned agreement reinforces Simply put, interest, presently implemented, unduly burdensome explained, unilateral means enforcing contracts between tribunal trying tort actions, family matters, "many [other] types actions too numerous mention." 102, 5. compromise "accommodate people." 103. Those opposed assertion subjected consent, permitted enjoy defendants. Certainly, requiring bear equally burdens benefits readily understandable. here, exist override interest. 26 obviously weighty one. California Motor Transport Trucking Unlimited, 404 508, 510, 513-514, 92 609, 611, 613, 30 642 (1972); Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. NLRB, 731, 741, 742-744, 2161, 2168, 2169-2170, 277 many long share courts, autonomy impeded allows enter seek concerning 7, 2274, (citing authority). conditions party. These apply regardless effective securing wrongs. concedes, even resolve controversies non-Indians, unable enforce judgments court; thus, said meaningful alternative adjudication way tribunals cases. Tr. Oral Arg. 26, 27. Cf. Lohnes Cloud, 254 430 (N.D.1977). Respondent truly unrestricted "merely" consenting conditions. conclude, met unacceptably high price operate effectively potentially severe intrusion Indians' ability according own order regain herein [upon consent] include determination parentage children, termination parental rights, commitments county guardianship, marriage contracts, obligations support spouse, dependents." 27-19-08 these subjects clearly encompass areas traditional control, 388-389, 947-948; Quiver, 241 602, 60 L.Ed. 1196 (1916), contemplates areas. 27-19-01. safeguards ordinance custom "shall, given section." 27-19-09. merely supplemented nonconflicting ordinances customs, involve concern simply jealous regard self-governance. 334-335, 17, 2386-2387, ("[B]oth firmly committed goal statutes"). 947-948. "A tribe's power prescribe conduct members doubted, establish 'absent Acts Congress,' act 'infringe[s] them.' 332, 2385 171-172, 1261-1262). 29 27-19's again gain plaintiff serves defeat federally conferred suit. common necessary corollary Santa Clara Pueblo Martinez, 436 49, 1670, 56 (1978). Of course, peculiar "quasi-sovereign" status tribes, congruent Government, States, enjoy. Fidelity Guaranty Co., 309 506, 513, 653, 656, 84 894 (1940). 173, 1263. And aspect like others, plenary definition. 58, 1677. Nonetheless, absence authorization, immunity, aspects privileged diminution To sure, imposed affect objectionable. For instance, concedes normal processes 10-11 ("The justice discovery insure fair defendants"). assert counterclaim out transaction occurrence principal setoff recoupment. 6-7, clear, intrusive laws. By open up coercive occurring invites impairment government, 387-388, 946-947.* 31 certainly constitute "governing Congress" validates type interference self-government. represent abandonment guarding Bryan Itasca County, 426 373, 2102, 2110-2111, 48 710 (1976): 32 "Today's favor assimilation, meant total assimilation. [N]othing remotely suggests Act's should undermining destruction governments conversion little 'private, voluntary organizations,' Mazurie, 419 544, 557 [95 710, 42 706] refutes inference: notably conferral themselves, 4(c), 1360(c), 'full effect' customs 'heretofore hereafter adopted State,' continuing vitality government." (Footnote omitted.) 33 amendments pointedly illustrate sovereignty. impetus addition involuntary feel ready felt threatened 721, 90th (1967), 1837, 1865 (views Sen. Ervin) ("Tribes critical authorizes needs special Moreover, appears unnecessarily preempted ."); Members Tribes: Hearing H.R. 15419 Related Bills Subcommittee Affairs House Committee Insular Affairs, 2d (1968) (referring ensure "subjected" courts' ready). 34 overly broad examined implicated case. perceived inequity permitting recover wrongs instances allegedly overriding circumstances, much accepted. examination tribal, then, 35 reversed, opinion. ordered. 37 whom STEVENS join, dissenting. 38 plaintiff, properly named them. holds rule—which commend most eminently fair—is advances two arguments: first, and, second, "overshadowing" "long-standing interests." Ante, 884. Neither awkward juxtaposition places arguments persuasive. 39 based consists assertions: (1) pre-empts establishes "comprehensive" plan's purpose ante, 884-885; (2) initial combined respect forbid passage 885-887. 40 inhibit accomplishment purpose. citation (1971) (per curiam ), unhelpful; describing detailed" scrutiny give deciding eliminate barriers addition, brevity relevant belie occupy field regulation. Silkwood Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 238, 248, 615, 621, 78 443 (1984). pronouncement certain eliminated. ch. 505, 590. Nor history, additions transform plan. Sess. (1953); IV, 403, 79; (1967). 41 There nothing accomplish purposes: "First, withdrawal responsibility affairs wherever practicable; subjection such." 3. 43 statute's elimination furthering goals. complete silence reasonably imply disclaimer. especially true entirely Act. 44 can asserted inferred "generally interstitial character," Richards 369 585, 589, 492 (1962), sense enacts background Burks Lasker, 441 471, 478, 1831, citing P. Bator, Mishkin, D. Shapiro, Wechsler, Hart Wechsler's Courts System 470-471 (2d ed. 1973). An appreciation render superfluous 79. impose limitation legislatures authorizing concomitant retention referred says about way. powers unreasonable interpret another find unconvincing. 45 think supporting "overshadow" play fares better quid pro quo seems evenhanded me. Nothing first place. obligation created matter dealing Indians. contrary, am familiar speak limitations matters. Thus, left free all, how "federal interest" precludes thereby done here: employment solely tribe. 46 prohibits applying dissent contrary conclusion. used reduce recovery, fix affirmative liability discussion 6-11. occasion comes us know respondent.

Classification Label: 1