Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co.
The Supreme Court ruled that a tribal court had no authority to hear a discrimination claim against a non-Indian bank over the bank's sale of land it owned in fee simple on a reservation, because tribes generally cannot regulate how non-Indians sell land they own outright.
The decision draws a sharp line between a tribe's power to regulate nonmembers' conduct or activities on reservation land and its power to control the sale of that land once it is owned outright by non-Indians, narrowing when tribal courts can hear cases against outsiders.
“But there is no reason the Bank should have anticipated that its general business dealings with respondents would permit the Tribe to regulate the Bank’s sale of land it owned in fee simple.”
The majority's core reason for rejecting tribal jurisdiction over the bank's land sale.
How it got here: The bank lost before the tribal trial and appellate courts, then lost again when a federal district court and the Eighth Circuit upheld tribal jurisdiction, prompting Supreme Court review.
The Case in Depth
What happened
A Native American couple, the Longs, and their ranching company had borrowed money for years from Plains Commerce Bank, a non-Indian bank near the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation. After the Longs fell behind on loans, they deeded mortgaged land to the Bank and leased it back with an option to buy. When a harsh winter caused them to lose cattle and miss their buyback deadline, the Bank sold the land to non-Indian buyers on terms the Longs said were more favorable than what they had been offered.
The question before the Court
Could a tribal court decide a discrimination lawsuit against a non-Indian bank over how the bank sold land it owned within a reservation?
The Court's answer
No — the Supreme Court ruled that the tribal court could not hear the discrimination claim over the bank's land sale, because tribes generally lack power to regulate how non-Indians sell land they own outright within a reservation. The Court applied the two exceptions from Montana v. United States that let tribes regulate nonmembers in limited situations, and found neither one reached a nonmember's decision to resell fee land, even to someone with a longstanding business relationship with tribal members.
The Court left the Longs' other claims — breach of contract and bad faith — untouched, since those involved the bank's broader dealings rather than the land sale itself and were not challenged. The ruling is narrow: it addresses only tribal authority over land sales, not tribal power to regulate other kinds of nonmember conduct on the reservation.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Banks, businesses, and individuals who own land outright within reservation borders now have clearer assurance that tribal courts cannot police the terms on which they resell that land, even if they have ongoing business dealings with tribal members. Tribes retain power to regulate nonmembers' conduct and activities on reservation land, but this ruling narrows their reach over property sales specifically.
What changes now
This is a final merits decision, not a temporary order. The tribal court's judgment on the discrimination claim is void, undoing both the damages award tied to that claim and the option the Longs had to repurchase part of the land. The Court left open whether the tribal court has jurisdiction over the Longs' separate breach-of-contract and bad-faith claims, since those were not before the Court and remain unresolved.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether the tribal court had jurisdiction over the Longs' breach-of-contract and bad-faith claims, which were not challenged or before the Court. It also did not decide whether the bank's broader commercial dealings with the Longs could otherwise trigger tribal regulatory authority.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent in part — Justice Ginsburg
“Rather, this case is about the power of the Tribe to hold nonmembers like the bank to a minimum standard of fairness when they voluntarily deal with tribal members.”Ginsburg's framing of what she believed the discrimination claim was really about.
Justice Ginsburg agreed the Bank had standing and agreed the tribal court overstepped by giving the Longs an option to buy land already sold to third parties. But she would have upheld the tribal court's separate $750,000 damages award for discrimination, arguing the claim was really about the tribe's power to hold the bank to a baseline of fairness in dealing with tribal members, not about regulating land sales themselves.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court applied the general rule that tribes lack authority over non-Indians on their reservations, which is especially strong when the land in question is owned outright ('in fee simple') by non-Indians rather than held in trust by the tribe.
- The Court recognized two narrow exceptions from Montana v. United States allowing tribal regulation of nonmembers: one for nonmembers who enter consensual business relationships with the tribe or its members, and one for nonmember conduct that threatens the tribe's political integrity, economic security, or welfare.
- Because a tribe's power to hear a case (adjudicative jurisdiction) cannot exceed its power to make rules in the first place (legislative jurisdiction), the Court asked whether the tribe could have regulated the bank's land sale at all before asking whether the tribal court could hear a lawsuit about it.
- The Court held that once land passes into non-Indian ownership in fee simple, the tribe loses its sovereign interest in controlling that land, so neither Montana exception extends to regulating the resale of such land, even between businesses with a history of dealing with tribal members.
- The Court distinguished a bank's general commercial relationship with tribal members, which might trigger tribal authority to regulate those specific transactions, from the bank's separate decision about how to resell land it already owned, which the tribe had no sovereign interest in controlling.
- Applying the second, narrower Montana exception, the Court found the land's resale to another non-Indian buyer, after 50 years in non-Indian hands, did not imperil the tribe's subsistence or welfare, so that exception also did not apply.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Montana v. United States (450 U. S. 544)
The Court reaffirms Montana's two exceptions for tribal civil jurisdiction over nonmembers but holds neither covers land sales.
Reaffirms Strate v. A-1 Contractors (520 U. S. 438)
The Court relies on Strate's rule that a tribe's power to hear cases cannot exceed its power to make rules.
Limits Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation (492 U. S. 408)
Treated as a narrow, land-use zoning exception that does not extend to regulating land sales.