Living Law,
Living LandSupport land rights

Court case

Dollar General Corp. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians

An evenly divided Supreme Court left in place a ruling that a Choctaw tribal court could hear a tort suit against a non-member company.

Citation
579 U.S. ___ (2016) (per curiam, equally divided)
Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Year
2016
Nations
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
Treaty at issue
none
Effect on land rights
procedural

What happened

A thirteen-year-old member of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, called John Doe in the court papers, was placed at a Dollar General store on the Choctaw reservation through the tribe's Youth Opportunity Program, a job-training program. The store sits on land held by the United States in trust for the Band, and operates under a lease agreement with the tribe and a business license issued by the tribe.

Doe alleged that the store's manager sexually molested him while he worked there. In January 2005 he sued the store's operator, Dolgencorp, and the manager in tribal court. Dolgencorp moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The tribal court denied the motion, and Dolgencorp then sued in federal court to stop the tribal case.

The Fifth Circuit held that Dolgencorp's consensual relationship with Doe gave the tribal court jurisdiction under Montana v. United States (1981), which sets out when tribes may regulate non-members. The Supreme Court took the case. On June 23, 2016, its entire decision was one sentence: "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court."

The Court gave no reasons and wrote no opinion, so the Fifth Circuit's ruling stood and the tribal court case could go forward.

Good to know. The Supreme Court's brief order does not say why it was evenly divided or how each justice voted.

Summarized with AI assistance from 4 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error

What the sources say, and how this was checked

Well supported by the sources below.

  1. The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.Dollar General Corp. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, No. 13-1496 (U.S. June 23, 2016) (Cornell LII)
  2. Dolgencorp operates a Dollar General store on the Choctaw reservation in Mississippi.Dolgencorp, Inc. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, No. 12-60668 (5th Cir. Mar. 14, 2014) (CourtListener)
  3. Doe alleges that Townsend sexually molested him while he was working at the Dollar General store.Dolgencorp, Inc. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, No. 12-60668 (5th Cir. Mar. 14, 2014) (CourtListener)
  4. The tribal court denied both motions.Dolgencorp, Inc. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, No. 12-60668 (5th Cir. Mar. 14, 2014) (CourtListener)

Research notes. The Supreme Court's per curiam text does not name the justices or say why the Court was evenly divided. The citation 579 U.S. 545 in the old caution was not confirmed from an opened source. Cases the old text compared (Plains Commerce Bank, Cooley) were not in these sources and were removed. The Fifth Circuit opinion is the substituted opinion of March 14, 2014.

Who is doing the work

Native legal and land defense, nationally

Gifts go straight to each organization; this atlas takes nothing. Listing is not endorsement: how organizations are listed.

Connections

Links marked “suggested” were matched automatically by name or date and have not yet been reviewed by a person.

Doctrine applied 2

Policy era 1

Nations named 1

Sources

  1. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/579/13-1496/legal text copy
The record’s fields
Holding
The Court split 4-4 (after Scalia's death), leaving in place a ruling that a tribal court could hear a tort suit against a non-member company that leased tribal land and operated a youth work program. No precedent set.
Kind
Court case
Confidence
High

Correct this record