## Facts

- Nathaniel Wesley Spurr, an enrolled member of the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, lived within the Pine Creek Reservation, located in the Band’s Indian country.
- Joy Lynn Spurr, Nathaniel’s stepmother, was a non-Indian who lived in the Detroit area, outside the boundaries of the Band’s Indian country.
- Nathaniel alleged that Joy repeatedly initiated unwanted contacts with him.
- Some of Joy’s conduct involved coming onto tribal lands to contact Nathaniel in person, including at or near his residence on the reservation.
- Joy also contacted tribal officials and employees in connection with her dispute involving Nathaniel; some of those communications occurred off the reservation and some involved tribal offices or personnel.
- Nathaniel petitioned the Nottawaseppi Huron Band Tribal Court for a protection order.
- After proceedings in tribal court, the trial court issued a “permanent” personal protection order (PPO) lasting one year that restricted Joy from contacting Nathaniel and from coming near him.
- Joy appealed to the Nottawaseppi Huron Band Supreme Court, arguing the tribal court lacked authority to issue the PPO against her because she was a non-Indian, lived off-reservation, and much of the alleged conduct occurred outside tribal territory.

## Issues

1. Whether the Nottawaseppi Huron Band Tribal Court had subject-matter jurisdiction to issue a personal protection order against a non-Indian respondent who lived outside the Band’s Indian country when the alleged harassment was directed at a tribal member living on the reservation and included some on-reservation conduct.
2. Whether the tribal court could exercise jurisdiction consistent with federal law governing tribal-court protection orders, including 18 U.S.C. § 2265(e).
3. Whether Joy’s contacts related to the reservation and the Band (including entering tribal lands and communications involving tribal officials or employees) supported the tribal court’s authority to adjudicate and enforce the PPO.

## Decision

- The Nottawaseppi Huron Band Supreme Court affirmed the tribal trial court’s issuance of the PPO against Joy.
- The court rejected Joy’s challenge to the tribal court’s jurisdiction, concluding the tribal court could issue a protection order against a non-Indian under the circumstances presented.
- The court treated the protective-order proceeding as one in which federal law authorizes tribal courts to issue and enforce protection orders involving any person, and it considered the on-reservation and member-centered nature of the dispute in sustaining tribal-court authority.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 2265(e), “[a] court of an Indian tribe shall have full civil jurisdiction to issue and enforce protection orders involving any person,” which includes non-Indians in protection-order matters.
- A tribal court may exercise civil jurisdiction to protect a tribal member living in the tribe’s Indian country from harassment where the respondent’s conduct is connected to the reservation or to tribal governmental functions (for example, entry onto tribal lands or repeated contacts involving tribal officials and employees).
- In reviewing a protection order on appeal, a tribal supreme court may uphold the trial court’s order when the jurisdictional basis is legally valid and the record supports the issuance of protective relief under tribal law.

## Conclusion

In *Spurr v. Spurr*, the Nottawaseppi Huron Band Supreme Court affirmed a one-year “permanent” PPO entered against a non-Indian stepmother who lived off-reservation, holding that the Band’s tribal court had authority to issue the protection order to protect a member residing on the Pine Creek Reservation where the alleged harassment included contacts with the member on tribal lands and conduct involving the tribal community, consistent with federal authorization for tribal-court protection orders under 18 U.S.C. § 2265(e).


Spurr v. Spurr, No. 17-287-APP, Nottawaseppi Huron Band Sup. LEXIS 6 (2018)