Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 316 (2008)
Primary Holding
The tribal court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate a discrimination claim concerning the sale of fee land owned by a non-Indian bank to non-Indian individuals, as the sale did not involve a matter of tribal law or governance.
In the case of Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., a bank that is not part of a Native American tribe sold land to non-Indians, and an Indian couple claimed they were treated unfairly in the process. The Supreme Court decided that the tribal court did not have the authority to hear this discrimination case because it involved a sale that didn't relate to tribal laws. This ruling is important because it clarifies that tribal courts have limits on their power, particularly when it comes to disputes involving non-Indians and non-tribal matters, which can affect how consumers seek justice in similar situations on or near reservations.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., the underlying dispute arose from a series of financial dealings between Plains Commerce Bank and the Long Family Land and Cattle Company, which is owned by Ronnie and Lila Long, both enrolled members of the Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Tribe. The Longs had been customers of the Bank for many years, and after the death of Kenneth Long, they negotiated a new loan contract in 1996 to address their outstanding debts. As part of this agreement, the Longs deeded 2,230 acres of fee land to the Bank in lieu of foreclosure, and the Bank provided a lease arrangement that allowed the Longs to lease the land with an option to purchase it later. Following this transaction, the Longs alleged that the Bank discriminated against them by offering more favorable terms for the purchase of the land to non-Indian individuals than those offered to them. The procedural history of the case began when the Longs filed a lawsuit in tribal court, claiming discrimination by the Bank in its dealings regarding the land. The Bank contested the jurisdiction of the tribal court, arguing that it should not be subject to tribal law in this matter. Despite the Bank's objections, the tribal court ruled that it had jurisdiction over the case and ultimately found in favor of the Longs, awarding them damages and the right to purchase a portion of the land. The relevant background context includes the historical reduction of the Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation, which was significantly diminished by Congress in the 1880s. The reservation now encompasses approximately 11 million acres in South Dakota. The Bank, while incorporated in South Dakota, had no direct ties to the reservation beyond its business interactions with tribal members. This case raised important questions about the jurisdiction of tribal courts over non-Indian entities and the applicability of tribal law in disputes involving non-Indians.
Whether the tribal court had jurisdiction to adjudicate a discrimination claim concerning the non-Indian bank’s sale of fee land it owned.
The judgment is reversed.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- April 14, 2008
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Roberts
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y., 544 U.S. 197 (2005)
Consumer LostThe Oneida Indian Nation cannot unilaterally revive its ancient sovereignty over lands purchased in an open market, as they have long relinquished governmental authority, and such a revival would disrupt the established governance of local municipalities.
Cherokee Nation of Okla. v. Leavitt, 543 U.S. 631 (2005)
Consumer WonThe Government's promises to pay contract support costs to Indian tribes under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act are legally binding, even if Congress did not appropriate sufficient funds for those costs.
Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)
Consumer LostThe application of the Kansas motor fuel tax to fuel received by non-Indian distributors, which is subsequently delivered to a gas station on the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation's reservation, does not violate the Nation's sovereignty because the tax arises from a transaction that occurs off the reservation, and thus the Bracker interest-balancing test does not apply.
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71 (2006)
Consumer LostTitle I of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA) preempts state-law class action claims alleging misrepresentation or omission of material facts in connection with the purchase or sale of covered securities, regardless of whether federal law provides a private remedy for those claims.