Goal IX Newsletter
Fall 2005, Volume 11, Number 1
Fall 2005, Volume 11, Number 1
Tribal Corporations.Frequently, an Indian tribe is organized pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (IRA), 25 U.S.C. § 461. Under Section 16 of the IRA, a tribe will have adopted a constitution and bylaws that set forth the tribe's governmental framework and the authority that each facet of its government possesses. A tribe may also be incorporated under Section 17 to the IRA, 25 U.S.C. § 477, by which the Secretary of Interior issues the tribe a federal charter. Through Section 17 incorporation, the tribe creates a separate legal entity to divide its governmental and business activities. The Section 17 corporation has articles of incorporation and bylaws that identify its purpose, much like a state-chartered corporation. Alternatively, an Indian corporation may have been organized under tribal or state law. If the entity was formed under tribal law, the tribe will have done so pursuant to its corporate code. Under federal common law, the corporation likely enjoys immunity from suit, as discussed below. Thus, the state-chartered tribal corporation is generally not immune from suit and may be sued in state court. When negotiating a tribal business transaction, you should first review the tribe's organic documents and code of laws, which taken together identify the entity with which you are dealing and your client's legal rights and remedies.
Tribal Courts.While generally modeled after Anglo-American courts, the 150 Indian courts in the U.S. are significantly different. Tribal judges, who are often tribal members, may not necessarily have law degrees. Tribal courts operate under the tribes' written and unwritten set of laws. Most tribal codes contain procedural rules specific to tribal court, as well as tribal statutes and regulations. Increasingly, tribes are adopting commercial laws modeled after the Uniform Commercial Code. Tribal procedural laws outline the tribal court's adjudicatory authority and may set forth limitations on tribal jurisdiction. Tribal laws also include traditional practices, including commercial customs, which are based on oral history but may not be codified.Tribal judges generally follow their own precedent and, although each and every tribal court and the tribal laws the follow are distinct from the next, tribal judges give significant deference to the decisions of other Indian courts. However, because there is no official tribal court reporter and not all tribal courts keep previous decisions on file, finding such case-law can be difficult. While federal and state court opinions can serve as persuasive authority, particularly in business litigation, tribal judges are not bound by such precedent. Nevertheless, many state courts extend full faith and credit to tribal court orders, and federal courts generally grant comity to tribal judges' rulings. When negotiating contractual choice-of-forum clauses, one must appreciate the character of tribal courts, understand pertinent tribal laws, and acknowledge both the differences and inter-relatedness of tribal, state and federal courts.
Tribal Sovereign Immunity.Like other sovereign governmental entities, tribes enjoy federal common law sovereign immunity. A tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has "unequivocally" authorized the suit or the tribe has "clearly" waived its immunity. Kiowa Tribe v. Manufacturing Technologies, 523 U.S. 757 (1998). Tribal immunity generally extends to tribal casinos and businesses, and to Section 17 and tribally-chartered corporations. Tribes and their officials, however, can be subject to suit under various exceptions recognized by courts. For example, courts have applied the Ex Parte Young doctrine to tribal officials, creating an exception to the general rule of immunity when an official acts outside of the government's authority.Tribes retain immunity from suit when conducting business both on- and off-reservation. As a general proposition, a tribe can only be sued in contract if the parties expressly negotiated a sovereign immunity waiver into the four corners of the contract. Nonetheless, the U.S. Supreme Court held in C&L Enterprises v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Oklahoma, 532 U.S. 411 (2001), that an agreement to arbitrate disputes constitutes a clear waiver of immunity. While the Court held that a tribe's waiver must be "clear," it expressed for the first time that a waiver need not include the express terms "waiver of sovereign immunity" and that an arbitration clause was sufficient to evidence such intentional waiver.Tribal immunity generally shields tribes from suit for damages and requests for injunctive relief. Tribes have also been held immune from subpoena enforcement to compel production of corporate witnesses or tribal documents. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Bishop Paiute Tribe v. County of Inyo, 275 F.3d 893 (2002), certiorari granted, 123 S. Ct. 618, recently reaffirmed that tribes are immune from subpoena enforcement in barring the execution of a warrant to obtain confidential payroll records for casino employees. The Supreme Court heard argument on Bishop Paiute in early 2003. Though expected by many tribal advocates to reverse the Ninth Circuit and, consistent with C&L and other recent Indian law opinions, further erode the tribal immunity defense, the court remanded the case for reconsideration of other issues. As such, tribes remain immune from subpoena enforcement, for the time being.
Waiver.In this modern age of Indian commerce, many (perhaps most) tribes agree to clear limited waivers of immunity in agreements with non-Indian parties. To further encourage commercial dealing, some tribes have created state-chartered corporations or subordinate entities, with the express understanding that the assets of such institutions are not immune from suit, levy, or execution. Still other tribes have specifically waived immunity for tribal businesses incorporated under the IRA.Negotiation of limited waivers of immunity is a widely-practiced prerequisite to contracting with tribal governments and their businesses. However, many attorneys fail to even spot the immunity issue when negotiating tribal contracts and thus risk finding their clients without a remedy in the event of a breach. When initiating a tribal contract, you should first consider practical remedies to any problems that may arise from the deal, such as bonding, insurance and/or lines of credit. If no practical solutions exist, you should ask the tribe for a limited waiver and stand prepared to negotiate explicit waiver, dispute resolution and choice-of-law clauses.
Tribal Lands.The Secretary of Interior must approve any contract or agreement that "encumbers Indian lands for a period of 7 or more years," unless the Secretary determines that approval is not required. 25 U.S.C. § 81. Under revisions to "Section 81" enacted in 2000, the Secretary will not approve any such contract or agreement if the document does not set forth the parties' remedies in the event of a breach, disclose that the Tribe can assert sovereign immunity as a defense in any action brought against it, or include an express waiver of tribal immunity. Leaseholds for Indian lands, which typically run 25 years in duration, also require Secretarial approval. 25 U.S.C. § 415. If the transaction implicates tribal lands, counsel should analyze whether the Secretary of Interior must approve the underlying contract or lease. Failure to secure Secretarial approval could render the agreement null and void.
Labor & Employment.Labor and employment issues affect the possibility and practicability of every tribal contract. Both Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b), and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, expressly exclude Indian tribes. Likewise, state discrimination laws usually do not apply to tribal employers, e.g., Arizona Revised Statute § 41-1464 expressly exempts tribes from the state's discrimination laws. Tribal officials are also immune from suit arising from alleged discriminatory behavior, so long as they acted within the scope of the tribe's authority. The circuits, however, are split regarding whether federal regulatory employment laws apply to reservation employers. The Tenth and Eight Circuits have refused to apply to tribes such laws as the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), because doing so would encroach upon well-established principles of tribal sovereignty and tribal self-governance.Conversely, the Ninth, Seventh and Second Circuits have applied OSHA, ERISA and NLRA to tribes, reasoning that such statutes of general applicability govern tribal employment activity because Indian tribes are not explicitly exempted from the laws. Following that logic, this past summer the National Labor Relations Board reversed several decades of its own precedent in ruling that the Board had jurisdiction to apply NLRA to tribal businesses in Indian Country. State labor laws and workers' compensation statutes generally remain inapplicable to tribal businesses. Given that U.S. tribes now employ nearly half a million Americans, it will not be long before the Supreme Court is asked to resolve the conflicting circuit court decisions. Until then, a business attorney should evaluate pertinent federal precedent at the outset of any tribal negotiation and determine to what extent labor and employment issues will impact the deal.Tribal Court Jurisdiction. Tribal jurisdiction depends largely upon (1) whether the defendant is Indian or non-Indian; and (2) whether the events at issue occurred in Indian Country, particularly tribal or non-Indian lands within the boundaries of a tribal community. These two highly complex issues should be the first area of inquiry for any jurisdictional question involving a business dispute arising on a reservation. A third threshold determination is whether Public Law 280, 28 U.S.C. § 1360(a), grants the state civil authority to adjudicate the deal. P.L. 280 applies fully in California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Wisconsin and Alaska.Generally speaking, tribal courts have jurisdiction over a suit by any party - Indian or non-Indian - against an Indian defendant for a claim arising on the reservation. However, under Montana v. U.S., 450 U.S. 544 (1981), a tribal court can only assert jurisdiction over a claim against a non-Indian defendant when "necessary to protect tribal self-government or to control internal relations." Essentially, an Indian court only has jurisdiction over non-Indian parties "who enter consensual relationships with the tribe . . . through commercial dealing, contract, leases, or other arrangements." The Supreme Court has made clear that a private contract qualifies as a consensual relationship under the so-called "Montana rule," thus affirming that tribal courts have jurisdiction over non-Indian parties to tribal contracts. However, parties to a tribal contract should not be required to litigate in tribal court so long as the agreement includes an express waiver and specific dispute resolution provisions permitting adjudication in another forum.State courts may exercise jurisdiction over non-contract claims against a non-Indian party that arises in Indian Country, or contract disputes involving a state-chartered tribal corporation or a tribal entity for which the tribe has waived immunity. Federal courts can assert jurisdiction over claims arising from reservation business activities if there a federal question under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 1343, or diversity under § 1332. While tribes generally destroy diversity because they are not state citizens, a state-chartered tribal enterprise can be sued in diversity.While tribal courts retain personal jurisdiction over non-Indian parties to tribal contracts and subject matter jurisdiction over disputes concerning the agreement, a series of recent Supreme Court cases casts serious doubt as to whether tribal authority over non-Indian business reservation activity remains "necessary to protect tribal self-government or to control internal relations." In Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001), the Court held that tribes lack adjudicatory jurisdiction to hear claims under 42. U.S.C. 1983 arising from the activities of state officials on reservation land but expressly left open "the question of tribal court jurisdiction over nonmember defendants in general." The Court explained, however, that "we have never held that a tribal court had jurisdiction over a nonmember defendant," observing that it had previously dodged the question of whether tribes may generally adjudicate claims against non-Indians arising from on-reservation transactions. As a result of Hicks, many tribal attorneys are now counseling their clients to consider settlement of business disputes with non-Indians, rather than litigation, for fear that the next appellate or high court decision will outright foreclose tribal adjudicatory jurisdiction over non-Indians.
Tribal Exhaustion Doctrine.When sued in tribal court, non-Indian parties can challenge tribal jurisdiction in federal court. The question of whether a tribe has jurisdiction over a non-Indian party must be answered by federal law and thus poses a federal question under Section 1331. National Farmers Union v. Crow Tribe, 471 U.S. 845 (1985). Ordinarily, however, "a federal court should stay its hand 'until after the tribal court has had a full opportunity to determine its own jurisdiction.'" Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997). If the tribal court determines it has jurisdiction, it will proceed to rule upon the merits of the case. The non-Indian party can then file suit in federal court, where the district court will review de novo the federal question of tribal jurisdiction. The district court is guided but not controlled by the tribal court's jurisdictional determination. If the federal court decides tribal court had jurisdiction, it will not relitigate issues already determined on the merits. Iowa Mutual. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9 (1987).There are several exceptions to the requirement that a federal court should stay its hand - where "an assertion of tribal jurisdiction is motivated by a desire to harass or is conducted in bad faith . . . or where the action is patently violative of express jurisdictional prohibitions, or where exhaustion would be futile because of the lack of an adequate opportunity to challenge the court's jurisdiction." National Farmers, supra. Moreover, "when . . . it is plain that no federal grant provides for tribal governance of nonmembers' conduct on land covered by Montana's main rule," exhaustion "would serve no purpose other than delay." Strate, supra. While these exceptions to the exhaustion rule can assist non-Indian defendants in getting into federal court, they offer little assistance to non-Indian parties to tribal contracts, who, absent negotiated choice-of-forum or dispute resolution provisions, remain subject to tribal jurisdiction under Montana. Because a tribal court could be the only trier of fact in a contractual dispute, a non-Indian party should thoroughly present the merits of its case to the tribal judge, being ever mindful of the unique aspects of tribal courts described above.
Conclusion.Corporate America is witnessing firsthand both the tremendous rise in Indian economic development and an array of business dealings and commercial litigation matters arising in Indian Country. With Fortune 500 companies increasingly doing business on reservation, Indian law has been transformed from a niche practice to a body of law intersecting every area of practice and engaging attorneys and clients of all types. Notwithstanding, Indian law defies boilerplate contract language, standard business negotiations, and common understandings of civil procedure and jurisdiction in the commercial litigation arena. For these reasons, it is vital that today's business lawyers have some understanding of basic Indian law, particularly those whose clients are doing business and seek to do business in Indian Country.
Mr. Galanda is an attorney with the Seattle-Portland law firm Williams, Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC. His practice focuses on the litigation of complex, multi-party commercial and Indian law matters, and consultation with tribes and non-tribal parties doing business in Indian Country. Mr. Galanda is a descendant of the Nomlaki and Concow Tribes, and an enrolled member of the Round Valley Indian Confederation in Northern California. He was recently appointed a ABA Business Law Section Ambassador for 2005-06.
|Back to this issue's Table of Contents|