Victory at the U.S. Supreme Court

On June 25, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a tribal court did not have jurisdiction to hear a discrimination claim concerning a bank’s sale of its land inside an American Indian reservation. Paul A. Banker and Robert V. Atmore of Lindquist & Vennum had petitioned the high court on behalf of their client, Plains Commerce Bank of South Dakota, earlier in the year, and Banker presented oral arguments to the Court on April 14, 2008, in Plains Commerce Bank vs. Long Family Land and Cattle Company, Inc., et al.

Lindquist & Vennum’s argument concerning jurisdiction caught the attention of the Supreme Court after being rejected by four lower courts. Banker, who heads Lindquist & Vennum’s appellate law practice group, argued that in this case, a tribal court had lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to rule on civil claims between tribal members and the non-Indian-owned bank. In an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Justices agreed.

The Supreme Court’s decision is significant because questions of jurisdiction had been left unanswered in previous litigation involving tribal courts and nonmembers. This decision provides a bright-line rule for determining where disputes should be adjudicated for claims relating to the sale of non-member-owned land to nonmembers inside a reservation. Parties to lawsuits involving these types of claims will now know that tribal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear these claims, and in the long term, the Court’s decision may strengthen and even promote economic and business development and growth inside reservations through collaborative efforts of members and nonmembers.  

Says Banker, “The case involved a complex question regarding tribal court jurisdiction. It was a question the Court had never answered before, about which reasonable people could disagree. It is gratifying to now have a favorable resolution and an opinion from the Court that clearly explains the reasoning behind that decision.”

Practice Group News

Life Sciences: A new Massachusetts law affects manufacturers of prescription drugs and medical devices.

Environmental and Land Use: Read the article "EU Regulation of Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Goods: RoHS One Year Later," by Jonathan P. Scoll and Julie M. Duckstad, or the follow-up article "Cal RoHS: California Brings European Hazardous Content Regulation “Home” to U.S. Manufacturers."

Employment and Employee Benefits: Visit our Employment Law Resource Center for news on numerous topics, such as the U.S. Department of Labor releases new “elaws” tool that helps employers comply with recordkeeping, reporting and notice requirements.
Bookmark this page of our website for quick access to employment law updates, articles, important web links and weekly tips to help you with the ins and outs of workplace laws.

M&A: Read about intellectual property considerations that are vital to a successful M&A deal in Mergers & Acquisitions: Don't Let IP Issues Break the Deal, by Lindquist & Vennum attorney Timothy Keller.

Corporate & Business Law: Get answers to frequently asked questions about what to do in response to a civil investigative demand from the Minnesota Attorney General's Office - "Civil Investigative Demands in Minnesota," by Thomas Pursell, published in the July 2007 issue of The Hennepin Lawyer.

International: Lindquist & Vennum attorney and former president of Novartis India, Ltd., Robert Thompson, shares his insights on doing business in India in Minnesota Looks at India.

Securities Litigation: Visit our Securities Litigation Group's blog, www.OverRegd.com (think "over-regulated"). OverReg'd is a resource on securities regulation and litigation topics.

Please be advised that all material contained herein is for informational purposes only, and is not offered as legal or any other advice. . . MORE