Court case

Strate v. A-1 Contractors

In 1997 a unanimous Court held a tribal court could not hear a crash suit between non-members on a state highway crossing the reservation.

Citation
520 U.S. 438 (1997)
Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Year
1997
Nations
Three Affiliated Tribes (Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara)
Treaty at issue
none
Effect on land rights
eroded

What happened

Two vehicles collided on a 6.59-mile stretch of North Dakota state highway that runs through the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. The stretch is open to the public, affords access to a federal water resource project, and is maintained by North Dakota under a federally granted right-of-way. The right-of-way lies on land held by the United States in trust for the Three Affiliated Tribes and their members.

Neither driver was a tribal member or an Indian. But Fredericks, one driver, was the widow of a deceased tribal member and had five adult children who were also members. The other driver, Stockert, worked for A-1 Contractors, a non-Indian-owned business that was under a subcontract with a corporation wholly owned by the Tribes to do landscaping on the reservation.

Fredericks sued in tribal court. The tribal court ruled it had jurisdiction, and the tribal appeals court affirmed. A federal district court agreed, but the Eighth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed.

On April 28, 1997, Justice Ginsburg wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court affirming that result. When an accident happens on a public highway maintained by the State under a federal right-of-way over reservation land, the Court held, a civil action against allegedly negligent nonmembers falls within state or federal governance, and tribal courts may not exercise jurisdiction "absent a statute or treaty authorizing the tribe to govern the conduct of nonmembers driving on the State's highway." The Court said it expressed no view on the law or forum when an accident occurs on a tribal road within a reservation.

Good to know. The holding is limited to a state-maintained highway right-of-way.

Summarized with AI assistance from 3 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. absent a statute or treaty authorizing the tribe to govern the conduct of nonmembers driving on the State's highwayStrate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  2. a tribe's adjudicative jurisdiction does not exceed its legislative jurisdictionStrate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  3. GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)

Research notes. The syllabus calls the reservation the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation and the Tribes the Three Affiliated Tribes; the atlas page also names Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara, which the syllabus does not. The holding is limited to a state-maintained highway right-of-way.

Who is doing the work

This history belongs to living nations. Start with them:

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.

Nations named 3

Doctrine applied 2

Policy era 1

Sources

  1. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/520/438/legal text copy
The record’s fields
Holding
Tribal courts lack jurisdiction over a negligence suit between non-members arising on a state-maintained highway right-of-way across the reservation; the right-of-way was treated as non-Indian land under Montana.
Kind
Court case
Confidence
High

Correct this record