## Facts

- Tom S. Joe, a Navajo tribal member, lived and worked on the Navajo Reservation in New Mexico.
- Joe obtained a consumer loan from USLife Credit Corporation in an off-reservation transaction and later defaulted.
- USLife sued Joe in New Mexico magistrate court; Joe did not appear, and the court entered a default judgment.
- USLife sought to collect by wage garnishment and obtained a writ naming Joe’s employer, Utah International, Inc., as garnishee.
- The garnishment summons was served on Utah International at its offices on the Navajo Reservation, targeting wages earned on the reservation.
- New Mexico law permitted garnishment of up to 25% of weekly wages, while the Navajo Tribal Code allowed judgment enforcement but expressly forbade wage garnishment.
- Joe filed a federal action for declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting that state garnishment of his on-reservation wages infringed treaty-protected tribal self-government.

## Issues

1. Whether the federal district court had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a claim that state garnishment proceedings violated federally protected treaty-based and tribal-sovereignty rights.
2. Whether a New Mexico magistrate court may garnish on-reservation wages of a Navajo tribal member from a reservation-based employer when tribal law expressly prohibits wage garnishment.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for Joe.
- The court held federal subject-matter jurisdiction existed because the complaint raised a substantial federal question grounded in treaty rights and federal Indian law protecting tribal self-government.
- The court held New Mexico’s garnishment remedy could not be used to reach Joe’s wages earned on the Navajo Reservation because it conflicted with the Navajo Tribal Code’s prohibition on wage garnishment.
- The injunction and declaratory relief preventing enforcement of the state garnishment against Joe’s on-reservation wages were upheld.

## Legal Principles

- Federal-question jurisdiction exists when a plaintiff plausibly alleges that state court processes infringe federally protected tribal sovereignty or treaty-based rights, unless the federal claim is insubstantial.
- Tribal self-government and federal policy protecting tribal autonomy can preempt application of state enforcement mechanisms to on-reservation economic relations involving tribal members.
- When tribal law provides a judgment-enforcement framework but deliberately excludes a specific remedy (such as wage garnishment), a state court may not impose the excluded remedy against reservation-based wages in a manner that conflicts with tribal policy.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit held that federal courts could hear Joe’s challenge and that New Mexico courts lacked authority to garnish a Navajo tribal member’s on-reservation wages where tribal law expressly barred wage garnishment, because the state remedy was preempted by federally protected tribal self-government.


Joe v. Marcum, 621 F.2d 358 (10th Cir. 1980)