Citations 533 U.S. 353 (more) End date 2001 | Concurrence Ginsburg | |
Full case name State of Nevada, et al. v. Floyd Hicks, et al. Majority Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg Concurrence Souter, joined by Kennedy, Thomas Concurrence O'Connor, joined by Stevens, Breyer Similar United States v Lara, United States v Kagama, Talton v Mayes, Johnson v M'Intosh, Ex parte Crow Dog | ||
Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the jurisdiction of Tribal Courts over local Native Americans.
Contents
Background
Hicks was a member of the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribes of western Nevada and lived on tribal land. State of Nevada Game Wardens executed state and tribal search warrants for evidence that Hicks was in possession of two California Bighorn Sheep heads, a crime which had been committed off-reservation. He then filed suit in Tribal Court against the wardens and the State of Nevada for alleging trespass, abuse of process, and violation of constitutional rights under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. The Tribal Court ruled that it had jurisdiction over the tribal tort and federal civil rights claims and the Tribal Appellate court affirmed. The State of Nevada argued before Federal District Court that the Tribal Court had no such authority. The District Court agreed with the tribe, arguing that the Wardens had to exhaust immunity claims in tribal court. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed stating that the fact that Hicks lived on the reservation is enough to give the tribal courts jurisdiction.
Opinion of the Court
In the unanimous decision of the Court, Justice Scalia held that the tribal courts did not have the authority over the Wardens' allegedly tortious acts. Tribal authority over non-members beyond what is necessary to protect tribal self-government is not available without express congressional delegation, since delegation did not exist the tribal court had no jurisdiction. Finally, the tribal court has no authority to regulate state officers in their official capacities, stating that tribal law hinders state law no more than state law inhibits federal law.