Background & Facts
Ronnie and Lila Long, members of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, ran a family ranch (Long Family Land & Cattle Co.) on land within the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation. They borrowed from Plains Commerce Bank, a non-Indian South Dakota bank, securing the loan with fee land they owned. When the Longs defaulted, the Bank took title to the fee parcels and later sold them to non-Indian buyers on terms more favorable than those it had offered to the Longs.
The Longs sued Plains Commerce Bank in Cheyenne River Tribal Court for racial discrimination — specifically, that the Bank had given non-Indian buyers better terms because they were non-Indian. The tribal court found jurisdiction under Montana Exception 1 (consensual relationship — the Longs had a banking relationship with the Bank) and entered judgment for the Longs.
The Supreme Court reversed 5-4.
The Court's Holding
Chief Justice Roberts held that tribal courts cannot regulate the sale of non-Indian fee land by a non-Indian, even when the seller had a separate consensual relationship with a tribal-member borrower. The Court reasoned that the Montana exceptions concern non-member conduct on tribal land — they do not extend to the disposition of fee title to land that has already passed out of tribal ownership.
Key Holding:
Tribal civil authority under Montana does NOT extend to regulating the sale of non-Indian fee land. The Montana exceptions cover non-member conduct and consensual relationships, but they do not reach the disposition of fee land that has been alienated from tribal ownership. Even where a consensual relationship exists, it must be tied to the specific regulation the tribe seeks to impose — not just to the parties.
Key Language
"Once tribal land is converted into fee simple, the tribe loses plenary jurisdiction over it... The tribe cannot justify regulation of the sale of non-Indian fee land by reference to its power to enforce tribal laws against tribe members in tribal court."
"Montana provides that, in certain circumstances, tribes may exercise authority over the conduct of nonmembers, even on non-Indian fee land. This general rule restricts tribal authority over nonmember activities taking place on the reservation, and is particularly stringent when the nonmember activity occurs on land owned in fee simple by non-Indians."
Justice Ginsburg, dissenting (joined by Stevens, Souter, Breyer): "The Court... draws a line distinguishing the regulation of fee land sales from the regulation of conduct on fee land. That line is unmoored from precedent."
How ATN Reads Plains Commerce
Plains Commerce is the third major Montana-narrowing case (after Strate and Hicks). Together they paint a picture of the Roberts Court tightening tribal civil authority over non-Indian fee land. ATN must understand the precise limit — and where the limit does NOT bite, which is most places ATN actually operates.
What Plains Commerce restricts:
- 1. Regulation of fee-land sales by non-Indians. ATN cannot use tribal court authority to govern the sale of fee parcels within historic reservation boundaries when both seller and buyer are non-Indian.
- 2. "Consensual relationship" exception narrowed further. Plains Commerce makes clear that having a consensual relationship with someone is not enough — the regulation must be tied to that specific relationship. A general loan relationship between a bank and a tribal-member borrower does not give the tribe regulatory authority over the bank's downstream property dealings.
- 3. The "alienated land" rule. The Court treats fee land as land that has been "lost" to tribal jurisdiction in a near-permanent way. Once a parcel has been patented to fee, restoring it to tribal jurisdiction generally requires going back into trust through the IRA process.
What Plains Commerce does NOT touch — and where ATN remains strong:
- 1. Conduct on tribal trust land. Plains Commerce, like all of the Montana progeny, applies to fee land. ATN's trust acreage at Mendocino is not affected. Inherent tribal authority over conduct on trust land remains full.
- 2. Properly-tied consensual relationships. Where the regulation IS tied to the consensual relationship — for example, ATN's cannabis license terms governing the conduct of the licensee within the licensed activity — the Montana Exception 1 still applies. Lexington v. Smith (9th Cir. 2024) confirms this in ATN's circuit. Plains Commerce does not eliminate the exception; it requires it to be properly applied.
- 3. All commercial relationships ATN structures intentionally. The Bank in Plains Commerce had a banking relationship with the Longs but no relationship with the Tribe itself. ATN structures its commercial dealings as direct tribal-to-business relationships (license agreements, vendor contracts, lease agreements), creating exactly the consensual nexus the case requires.
- 4. Disputes within ATN's regulatory program. When a non-Indian licensee violates the terms of an ATN license, the dispute is not about a separate fee-land transaction — it is about conduct within the regulated activity. Plains Commerce does not reach those disputes.
Strategic implication for ATN's contracting: The lesson of Plains Commerce is to make the connection between the tribal interest and the regulated activity explicit and tight. License agreements should expressly identify the tribal interests being protected and the conduct being regulated. Vendor contracts should expressly invoke tribal jurisdiction for disputes arising from the contract. Generic "we have a relationship, therefore we have jurisdiction" theories will not survive Plains Commerce. Specific "this conduct, regulated by this tribal authority, governed by this contract clause" theories will.
For PL280 specifically: Plains Commerce is not a PL280 case but it interacts with PL280 in an important way. PL280 transferred state adjudicatory authority over civil matters; Plains Commerce limits tribal authority on certain civil matters involving fee land. The combined effect is that some civil disputes — non-Indian-on-non-Indian transactions on fee parcels within historic reservation boundaries — fall entirely into California state court. ATN's tribal court strategy works around this gap by focusing on trust-land conduct, member disputes, properly-tied commercial relationships, and threats to tribal welfare — all areas where neither Plains Commerce nor PL280 displaces tribal authority.
Related Cases
- Montana v. United States (1981) — The framework Plains Commerce narrows
- Strate v. A-1 Contractors (1997) — Earlier narrowing — state highway rights-of-way as fee-equivalent
- Nevada v. Hicks (2001) — Companion narrowing for state officers
- Atkinson Trading Co. v. Shirley (2001) — Same-Term narrowing applied to taxation
- Lexington Insurance Co. v. Smith (9th Cir. 2024) — Modern affirmation of Montana Exception 1 in ATN's circuit