## Facts

- Mary Jane Wilson, an enrolled member of the Blackfeet Tribe, was injured in a traffic accident on U.S. Highway 2 within the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in Montana.
- Thomas David Marchington, a nonmember, attempted to pass Wilson as she signaled a left turn, colliding with her vehicle; he was acting within the scope of employment for Inland Empire Shows, Inc., an Idaho carnival company.
- Wilson sued Marchington and Inland Empire in Blackfeet Tribal Court and obtained a $246,100 judgment.
- After appellate proceedings within the tribal court system, the tribal judgment became final.
- Wilson filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana seeking recognition and enforcement of the tribal judgment based on full faith and credit or comity.
- The district court recognized and enforced the tribal judgment, and the defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a tribal court judgment is entitled to recognition in federal court under full faith and credit principles or only under comity.
2. Whether the tribal court had civil adjudicatory jurisdiction over nonmember defendants for a tort occurring on a public highway within reservation boundaries.
3. Whether a federal court may recognize and enforce a tribal judgment if the tribal court lacked jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s enforcement order.
- The court held that tribal court judgments are not governed by federal full faith and credit statutes; recognition is determined by federal common-law comity.
- The court held the Blackfeet Tribal Court lacked civil adjudicatory jurisdiction over the nonmember defendants under the Montana framework.
- Because jurisdiction is a threshold requirement for comity recognition, the tribal judgment was not enforceable in federal court.

## Legal Principles

- Tribal court judgments are not automatically entitled to full faith and credit under 28 U.S.C. § 1738; federal courts apply comity to determine recognition and enforcement.
- Under comity, a federal court may recognize a tribal judgment if the tribal court had personal and subject-matter jurisdiction, the proceedings were fair and regular with due process, and recognition is not contrary to the forum’s public policy.
- Lack of tribal jurisdiction requires denial of recognition; jurisdiction is a gatekeeping inquiry before due process or public policy analysis.
- Tribal civil authority over nonmembers is generally absent unless one of two Montana exceptions applies: (1) the nonmember entered a qualifying consensual relationship with the tribe or its members, or (2) the nonmember’s conduct threatens or directly affects the tribe’s political integrity, economic security, or health or welfare.
- A traffic accident involving nonmembers on a public highway right-of-way within reservation boundaries, without a qualifying consensual relationship and without a threat to tribal self-government, falls outside Montana’s exceptions.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that federal courts evaluate tribal tort judgments under comity rather than full faith and credit, and that a tribal judgment cannot be enforced in federal court when the tribal court lacked civil jurisdiction over nonmember defendants under the Montana limitations.


Wilson v. Marchington, 127 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 1997)