The Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold

For this blog I selected the M3 on line resource of “Tribal Courts of New York.”¹ The selection was in part due to the embedded link that redirected me to the Three Affiliated Tribes and the case against Wold Engineering in the US Supreme Court. My scholarly project was that of the Hidatsa Indian Tribe and the Three Affiliated Tribes. This was a natural segway into this blog as they tie nicely together.

My main concern with this story is the jurisdictional issues between tribal, local, state and federal courts. [This case was in regards to Wold Engineering installing a water supply system on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation that was determined by the Three Affiliated Tribes to be inadequate. The Tribe was suing Wold Engineering for breach of contract and negligence. The issue with this case is that the state failed to hear the case on the basis that Indian territories were generally deemed beyond the legislative and judicial jurisdiction of the state governments. Therefore the case was dismissed by the North Dakota Supreme Court on the basis of “lack of jurisdiction.” The reason being is that The Three Affiliated Tribes could not avail itself of state court jurisdiction unless it consented to waive its sovereign immunity and to have any civil disputes in state court to which it is a party adjudicated under state law. In other words, they had to relinquish their sovereignty to gain access to the US Court Systems. This naturally presented many conflicts of interest hence the reason that it went to the Supreme Court of the United States to be litigated. Without access to the US Court System, the Tribe would have no affective means to litigate civil matters nor would it have the ability to enforce judgments and or settlements. North Dakota upholds their position that the tribe was not deprived of access to the court because they could have elected to consent to statutory conditions. However, those statutory conditions may be met only at an unacceptably high price to tribal sovereignty, and thus operate to effectively bar the Tribe from the courts. The conclusion is that the operation of the North Dakota jurisdictional scheme in this case is inconsistent with federal law and is reinforced by the fact that it imposes an undue burden on federal and tribal interests in Indian self-government and autonomy, as well as the federal interest in ensuring access to the courts]²

I believe this material was carefully considered for this course due to the issues regarding sovereignty and the consistent practice to reduce or diminish tribal sovereignty. This was evident in the position of the North Dakota Supreme Court. The information contained within these resources continues to exemplify the constant battle the tribes must fight to establish their rights and protections as sovereign nations. Although the Natives are making slow progress, it comes with a heavy mental and financial toll. 

 

1.       Empire State College, First Peoples of North America, Reservation to Resurgence Wks. 9-11, M3 Online Resources, Tribal Courts of New York, New York Federal-State-Tribal Courts and Indian Nations Justice Forum, Internet, Accessed 07-30-15, http://www.nyfedstatetribalcourtsforum.org/history.shtml

 

2.       Justia US Supreme Court, Affiliated Tribes v. Wold Engineering, Internet, Accessed 07-30-15, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/476/877/case.html