Native women rallied on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court for the Quilt Walk for Justice on December 7, 2015. Photo by Indianz.Com
Retired professor Peter d'Errico reviews oral arguments in Dollar General Corporation v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, a tribal jurisdiction case that was heard by the U.S. Supreme Courton December 7:
One expects the opposing party to deny one's arguments. No surprise. The inauspicious note stems from the part of the Choctaw argument Dollar General didn't deny: namely, the notion that "the Tribes entered the United States and were incorporated into [the] country." Dollar General didn't deny that part of the Choctaw argument because it agrees with it. Dollar General based its argument against Choctaw jurisdiction (over the tort case resulting from alleged sexual abuse of a minor Choctaw employee by the store manager) on the premise that Indian Nations were absorbed into the "national tradition of the United States and our Constitution." By failing to challenge the notion of "incorporation"—worse, by adopting the concept of incorporation into their own argument—the Choctaw opened the door wide to Dollar General's attack. Dollar General hammered on the argument that "the Tribes" were "incorporated into the United States" as inferior sovereigns. When Justice Ginsburg referred to language in prior U.S. Supreme Court decisions saying "tribal courts" have civil jurisdiction over non-Indians, Dollar General said that language in favor of Indians was "dictum"—i. e., not binding as precedent—and that other decisions against the "Tribes" are binding.Get the Story:
Peter d'Errico: Dollar General: Finding Indian Sovereignty in Christian Discovery (Indian Country Today 12/18) Relevant Documents:
Transcript: Dollar General v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (December 7, 2015)
Join the Conversation
Related Stories
Mississippi Choctaw family
seeks $2.5M in Dollar General case (12/11) Matthew Fletcher: Supreme Court takes up tribal jurisdiction case (12/8)
Native women rally at Supreme Court for tribal jurisdiction case (12/7)
Steven Newcomb: Supreme Court ready to cut sovereignty again (12/7)
Peter d'Errico: Anti-Indian forces play hardball in Supreme Court (12/7)
Mike Myers: Tribal jurisdiction opponents flock to Supreme Court (12/04)
Native women schedule Quilt Walk for Justice at Supreme Court (12/01)
Steven Newcomb: Language of domination persists in Indian law (12/1)
Steven Newcomb: Even the media treats our nations as 'nothing' (11/27)
Ned Blackhawk: Supreme Court case jeopardizes tribal rights (11/25)
Peter d'Errico: Anti-Indian wars continue in our Supreme Court (11/24)
Native women to rally at Supreme Court for upcoming case (11/11)
DOJ to help with arguments in Supreme Court jurisdiction case (11/09)
Native women defend tribal jurisdiction in Supreme Court case (10/26)
Tribes urged to bring states on board for Supreme Court case (10/20)
Cheyenne & Arapaho Tribal Tribune: Supreme Court case tests tribal jurisdiction (10/14)
Supreme Court schedules oral arguments in two Indian law cases (10/12)
States oppose tribal jurisdiction in upcoming Supreme Court case (10/07)
Supreme Court rejects petitions in four more Indian law cases (10/05)
Supreme Court agrees to hear Omaha Reservation boundary case (10/02)
Supreme Court considers petitions in slew of Indian law cases (09/22)
Bryan Newland: The racist foundation of Supreme Court rulings (09/08)
Supreme Court agrees to hear first tribal jurisdiction case in years (06/15)
Supreme Court needs more time to review tribal jurisdiction case (6/8)
SCOTUSBlog: DOJ urges denial of petition in tribal court dispute (05/20)
DOJ files brief in tribal jurisdiction case before Supreme Court (5/14)
Updates from National Congress of American Indians DC meeting (2/27)
Updates from National Congress of American Indians winter session (2/26)
Supreme Court asks DOJ for views in Mississippi Choctaw case (10/06)
