## Facts

- A Crow Indian minor was injured in a motorcycle accident in the parking lot of a school located within the Crow Reservation on land owned by the State of Montana.
- The minor, through a guardian, sued School District 17 (a Montana political subdivision) in Crow Tribal Court and obtained a default judgment.
- The school district and its insurer, National Farmers Union Insurance Companies, filed suit in federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 seeking to enjoin enforcement of the tribal-court judgment.
- Petitioners alleged that federal law divested the Crow Tribe of civil adjudicatory authority over a non-Indian defendant for a tort occurring on state-owned land within the reservation.
- The federal district court enjoined execution of the tribal judgment, concluding the tribal court lacked jurisdiction over a civil action against a non-Indian.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding the district court lacked authority to review and enjoin the tribal judgment in that posture.

## Issues

1. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over a claim that a tribal court exceeded the lawful limits of its civil jurisdiction over a non-Indian defendant.
2. If § 1331 jurisdiction exists, whether the federal court may decide the tribal-jurisdiction question before the parties exhaust available remedies in the tribal court system.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held that § 1331 encompasses the federal question whether the tribal court exceeded the lawful limits of its jurisdiction; petitioners stated a claim “arising under” federal law.
- The Court held that, as a matter of comity, parties generally must exhaust tribal-court remedies before the federal court entertains the challenge to tribal-court jurisdiction.
- The Court did not decide the merits of the tribal court’s jurisdiction in this case, directing that the matter be addressed first in tribal court, with potential later federal review.

## Legal Principles

- A federal court has federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to hear a claim that a tribal court has exceeded the lawful bounds of its civil jurisdiction over a non-Indian.
- The “existence and extent” of tribal-court jurisdiction is a substantial question of federal law, including the extent to which tribal sovereignty has been altered or limited by federal law.
- As a prudential rule grounded in comity and federal policy supporting tribal self-government, a party challenging tribal-court jurisdiction must ordinarily exhaust tribal-court remedies before seeking federal judicial relief.
- Exhaustion is not a jurisdictional bar; the district court may dismiss the action or stay it pending completion of tribal proceedings.
- Exhaustion may be excused in limited circumstances (e.g., plainly absent jurisdiction, futility, or irreparable harm), but absent such circumstances the tribal court should address jurisdiction first.

## Conclusion

The Court held that federal district courts may review, under § 1331, whether a tribal court has exceeded its civil jurisdiction over non-Indians, but required litigants to exhaust available tribal-court remedies before obtaining federal adjudication of that jurisdictional challenge.


Nat’l Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845 (1985)