Background & Facts
The dispute arose from an insurance bad-faith claim filed in tribal court by tribal members against a non-Indian commercial insurer that had issued a policy covering activity on tribal land. The insurer sought a federal injunction to stop the tribal court proceedings, arguing the tribal court lacked civil jurisdiction over a non-member corporation.
The Ninth Circuit applied the Montana v. United States framework and the tribal exhaustion doctrine.
The Court's Holding
The Ninth Circuit affirmed that the tribal court had colorable jurisdiction under the Montana consensual-relationship exception, and that tribal exhaustion was required before any federal forum could entertain a challenge. The decision reinforces that non-Indian commercial actors who enter into consensual dealings with a tribe or its members on tribal land submit themselves to tribal court adjudicatory authority.
Key Holding:
Where a non-member insurer contracts with a tribal entity and the dispute arises from that consensual relationship on the reservation, the tribal court possesses civil adjudicatory jurisdiction under Montana's first exception, and federal courts must require tribal exhaustion before intervening.
How This Supports ATN's PL280 Arguments
Lexington is the most recent Ninth Circuit decision (2024) confirming that tribal courts in California — a P.L. 280 mandatory state — retain robust civil jurisdiction over non-members through the Montana consensual-relationship and conduct exceptions. P.L. 280 did not erase that authority.
- 1. 9th Circuit binding authority: Direct precedent in the circuit covering ATN's reservation.
- 2. Tribal exhaustion: Counterparties dealing with ATN must exhaust tribal-court remedies first.
- 3. Commercial counterparties: Vendors, insurers, and contractors entering ATN agreements consent to tribal forum.
Related Cases
- Walker v. Rushing (8th Cir. 1990) — Concurrent tribal jurisdiction in PL280 states
- Hopland Band v. California (9th Cir. 2022) — Companion 9th Circuit tribal authority case