Nevada v. Hicks

Nevada v. Hicks
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 21, 2001 Decided June 25, 2001
Full case name	State of Nevada, et al. v. Floyd Hicks, et al.
Holding
Tribal Courts do not have the authority to restrict or regulate state officials in investigation off-reservation violations of state law. They also lack the ability to hear claims that officials violated Tribal Law in the performance of their duties.
Court membership
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy David Souter · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
Majority	Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg
Concurrence	Souter, joined by Kennedy, Thomas
Concurrence	Ginsburg
Concurrence	O'Connor, joined by Stevens, Breyer
Concurrence	Stevens, joined by Breyer
Laws applied
42 U. S. C. § 1983

Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the jurisdiction of Tribal Courts over local Native Americans.

Background

Hicks was a member of the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribes of western Nevada and lived on tribal land. State of Nevada Game Wardens executed state and tribal search warrants for evidence that Hicks was in possession of two California Bighorn Sheep heads, a crime which had been committed off-reservation. He then filed suit in Tribal Court against the wardens and the State of Nevada for alleging trespass, abuse of process, and violation of constitutional rights under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. The Tribal Court ruled that it had jurisdiction over the tribal tort and federal civil rights claims and the Tribal Appellate court affirmed. The State of Nevada argued before Federal District Court that the Tribal Court had no such authority. The District Court agreed with the tribe, arguing that the Wardens had to exhaust immunity claims in tribal court. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed stating that the fact that Hicks lived on the reservation is enough to give the tribal courts jurisdiction.

Opinion of the Court

In the unanimous decision of the court Justice Scalia held that the tribal courts did not have the authority over the Wardens allegedly tortuous acts. Tribal authority over non-members beyond what is necessary to protect tribal self-government is not available without express congressional delegation, since delegation did not exist the tribal court had no jurisdiction. Finally the tribal court has no authority to regulate state officers in their official capacities, stating that tribal law hinders state law no more than state law inhibits federal law.

External links

• Supreme Court collection
• onecle
• American Bar Association