Nevada v. Hicks | |
---|---|
Argued March 21, 2001 Decided June 25, 2001 | |
Full case name | State of Nevada, et al. v. Floyd Hicks, et al. |
Citations | 533 U.S. 353 (more) 121 S. Ct. 2304; 150 L. Ed. 2d 398; 2001 U.S. LEXIS 4669 |
Case history | |
Prior | 944 F. Supp. 1455 (D. Nev. 1996); affirmed, 196 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 1999); cert. granted, 531 U.S. 923 (2000). |
Holding | |
Tribal Courts do not have the authority to restrict or regulate state officials in investigation off-reservation violations of state law. They also lack the ability to hear claims that officials violated Tribal Law in the performance of their duties. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg |
Concurrence | Souter, joined by Kennedy, Thomas |
Concurrence | Ginsburg |
Concurrence | O'Connor, joined by Stevens, Breyer |
Concurrence | Stevens, joined by Breyer |
Laws applied | |
42 U.S.C. § 1983 |
Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the jurisdiction of Tribal Courts when state officials are sued by tribal members in tribal court.[1] The Supreme Court unanimously decided that Tribal courts lack jurisdiction to decide tort claims or § 1983[2] claims related to State law enforcement's process on the reservation, but related to a crime that allegedly occurred off the reservation nor must the parties exhaust their claims in Tribal court before filing in federal court.