Appellant Brief - Turtle Talk

At a minimum and contrary to the District Court’s conclusion, the omitted
stipulations create an ambiguity as to both the validity and the meaning of the
stipulation that precluded summary judgment without further development of the
record.
Accordingly, the Tribal Court respectfully suggests that the judgment of the
District Court must be reversed on each of these grounds and the matter either
remanded for dismissal or to allow appropriate discovery.
ARGUMENT
I. THE DISTRICT COURT INCORRECTLY CONCLUDED THAT
UNDER STRATE, ANY RIGHT-OF-WAY NECESSARILY DIVESTS
A TRIBE OF ITS INHERENT AUTHORITY TO REGULATE
NONMEMBER CONDUCT ON TRIBAL TRUST LANDS.
The District Court incorrectly concluded that this case is on “all fours” with
Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997). Mem. Op. and Order, A06. 4
While the court below expressed “some sympathy” for the Tribal Court’s argument
that all rights-of-way cannot be treated categorically for purposes of tribal court
jurisdiction, A10, the court concluded that it was obliged to apply Strate as it “was
decided” under its interpretation, holding:
If the federal government has granted any kind of a right-of-way over
reservation land, the tribal court may not exercise jurisdiction over
claims against nonmembers arising out of automobile accidents that
occur on that land, unless one of the Montana exceptions applies.
4 Later citations to the District Court’s opinion are just to the Addendum page.
10