Kennerly v. District Court of the Ninth Judicial District of Montana

1971-01-18

Headline: Court rejects tribal-council-only consent to state civil courts, requires majority vote by enrolled Indians for state jurisdiction, vacates Montana ruling and sends case back for further proceedings.

Holding: The Court held that a tribal council’s unilateral law cannot give Montana civil jurisdiction over reservation members and that under the 1968 Act tribal consent requires a majority vote of enrolled Indians in a special election.

Real World Impact:

Prevents state civil jurisdiction based solely on tribal council action.
Requires tribes to use majority-vote special elections to consent to state jurisdiction.
Vacates Montana court decision and sends case back for further proceedings.

Topics: tribal sovereignty, state court jurisdiction, Indian reservations, tribal voting rules

Summary

Background

Members of the Blackfeet Tribe living on the Blackfeet Reservation bought food on credit in Browning, a town inside the reservation. A Montana store sued them in state court over the debt. The tribe’s council had passed a law saying tribal and state courts would have concurrent jurisdiction, and the Montana Supreme Court relied on that council action to allow the state suit to proceed.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether a tribal council’s unilateral action can give a State civil power over reservation members. It held that the earlier 1953 law required affirmative state legislative action and that the 1968 Civil Rights Act changed the rules: tribal consent for state jurisdiction must be shown by a majority vote of enrolled Indians in a special election. A tribal council’s passaged law does not meet that statutory procedure, so Montana’s asserted jurisdiction was not valid under those federal statutes.

Real world impact

The ruling means States cannot rely simply on a tribal council’s legislation to assume civil jurisdiction over reservation members; tribes must use the election procedure required by the 1968 law. The Supreme Court vacated the Montana decision and sent the case back to the state courts for further steps consistent with this opinion. This is a procedural ruling about how consent must be shown, not a final ruling on the underlying debt claim.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stewart (joined by Justice White) dissented, arguing Congress did not intend to invalidate tribal legislation granting state jurisdiction and that striking down the tribal law frustrates tribal self-government.