1 gen 2001 anni - Nevada v. Hicks

Descrizione:

“[W]here nonmembers are concerned, the ‘exercise of tribal power beyond what is necessary to protect tribal self-government or to control internal relations is inconsistent with the dependent status of the tribes, and so cannot survive without express congressional delegation.’”

Hicks v. Nevada
Overview
Hicks, the respondent is a member of the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribes of western Nevada. Hicks lived on the reservation of the tribe. The petitioner for Mter stated that the game wardens effected both state-court and tribal court search warrants for Hick’s home in search of evidence of an off-reservation crime. The petitioner filed suit in the Tribal Court against, among others, the wardens in their own capacities. Petitioner Nevada alleged the trespass, abuse of process and the violation of constitutional rights remediable under article 42 of the U.S. constitution of 1983. According to the Tribal Court, it had jurisdiction over the tribal tort and federal civil rights claims which the Tribal Appeal Court acknowledged. However, the petitioners, in the Federal District Court, sought an affirmation ruling that the Tribal Court had no jurisdiction over the claims. However, the District Court made a judgment on the issue by granting the respondents a summary of judgement which held that the wardens were required to exhaust their qualified immunity claims in the Tribal Court. In upholding, the Ninth Circuit resolved that the fact that Hick’s home lies on the land of tribe-owned reservation is enough to support tribal jurisdiction over civil claims against non-members arising from their activities on the land.
History
Tribal courts are not considered as courts of general jurisdiction as the historical as well as the constitutional assumption of synchronized state-court jurisdiction over cases that involve federal statutes are missing with respect to tribal courts. Besides, their inherent adjudicative jurisdiction over non-members is at most as extensive as their legislative jurisdiction. Congress never purported to grant tribal courts jurisdiction over the claims of 1983, as such jurisdiction was likely to create serious anomalies under article 28 of the U.S. Constitution.
Biography
Hick’s, respondent was one out of nearly 900 members of the tribe of Fallon Paiute-Shoshone of western Nevada. Hicks lived on the reservation of the Tribe that occupied almost 8,000 acres as established by the federal statute, Chapter 53 (35) Stat. 85 in 1908. In 1990, Hicks was suspected of having killed a California bighorn sheep, off the reservation which was a gross misdemeanor.
FIRAC
NEVADA et al. v. HICKS et al., (2001)
No. 99-1994
Argued: March 21, 2001 Decided: June 25, 2001
Facts
Floyd Hicks is a member of the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribes of western Nevada. Tribal police observed that Hicks was in possession of two California bighorn sheep heads. The state game wardens obtained search warrants from state court and from the tribal court to execute the search in Hicks’ home. Hicks filed suit in Tribal Court and alleged trespass to land and chattels, abuse of process, and violation of civil rights, specifically denial of equal protection, denial of due process, and unreasonable search and seizure.
Issue
Can a tribal court assert jurisdiction over civil claims against state officials who entered tribal land to execute a search warrant against a member of a tribe suspected of having violated state law outside the reservation?
NO
Rule
In the Hicks v. Nevada Case, the District Court made a judgment on the issue by granting the respondents a summary of judgement which held that the wardens were required to exhaust their qualified immunity claims in the Tribal Court. In upholding, the judges resolved that the fact that Hick’s home lies on the land of tribe-owned reservation is enough to support tribal jurisdiction over civil claims against non-members arising from their activities on the land.
Conclusion
In a judgement delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court ruled in favor of Nevada. The Court unanimously held that "because the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribes lacked legislative authority to restrict, condition, or otherwise regulate the ability of state officials to investigate off-reservation violations of state law, they also lacked adjudicative authority to hear respondent's claim that those officials violated tribal law in the performance of their duties. "Since the lack of authority is clear." Furthermore, according to Scalia, "there is no need to exhaust the jurisdictional dispute in tribal court. State officials operating on a reservation to investigate off-reservation violations of state law are properly held accountable for tortious conduct and civil rights violations in either state or federal court, but not in tribal court."
Related Cases
Strate v. A-1 Contractors
In the case, the Court held that the jurisdiction of a Tribal Court cannot extend further than the legislative jurisdiction of the tribe.
Montana v. United States
In this case, the Court held that the Montana’s Tribe Crow had no authority to control non-Indian hunting and fishing on the reservation land owned by non-tribe members in fee.
Articles
Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438, 117 S. Ct. 1404, 137 L. Ed. 2d 661 (1997).
Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 101 S. Ct. 1245, 67 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1981).

Aggiunto al nastro di tempo:

Data: