Idaho Supreme Court upholds CdA Tribe’s jurisdiction over St. Joe River docks

BOISE – The Idaho Supreme Court has ruled that the Coeur d’Alene Tribe has the authority to remove unpermitted docks and pilings on the St. Joe River that were placed by nontribal members who refused to seek tribal permits or appear in tribal court.

Kenneth and Donna Johnson contended that their dock and pilings were above the spot where the historical high-water mark was located when the Coeur d’Alene Reservation was created in 1873, and therefore not among the lands the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2001 belong to the tribe – all submerged lands of Lake Coeur d’Alene and the St. Joe River within the reservation. They claimed the construction of the Post Falls Dam, which started operating in 1906, changed the high-water mark.

But a unanimous Idaho Supreme Court said the land on both sides of the river within the reservation was held in trust by the United States “for the use and benefit of the Tribe” when the reservation was created. And any transfer of that land would only have conveyed title up to the high-water mark, so the riverbed couldn’t be owned by the Johnsons.

“We are pleased that the Idaho Supreme Court recognized the jurisdiction of the Coeur d’Alene Tribal Court in this matter,” said Coeur d’Alene Tribal Chairman Chief Allan. “This case sets a precedent that not only are appropriately decided Tribal Court opinions and judgments valid throughout the state, but that the property rights of the Tribe must be respected.”

The Johnsons also maintained they weren’t afforded due process “because the Tribal Court is dominated by the Tribe and was thus biased against them,” Justice Joel Horton wrote in the court’s unanimous decision. He rejected that argument, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court also had “rejected similar attacks on tribal court jurisdiction in the past,” and that federal law protects the rights of non-Indians against unfair treatment in tribal courts.

The Johnsons’ property is located within the reservation; they aren’t members of the tribe.

In June of 2014, the tribe sent the Johnsons a letter asking them to remove their dock and pilings or obtain a permit from the tribe. The Johnsons did neither.

The tribe then filed an eviction action in tribal court over the issue. The Johnsons ignored four separate notices about the eviction lawsuit, and the tribal court issued a default judgment against them. It also ordered a $17,400 civil penalty and declared that the Johnsons were trespassing on tribally controlled lands, and the tribe was entitled to remove the dock and pilings.

In 2016, the tribe filed a motion in state district court in Benewah County asking that the tribal court judgment be recognized and enforced against the Johnsons. The Johnsons objected, but the district court ruled in favor of the tribe, citing a 1982 Idaho Supreme Court ruling that tribal court judgments are entitled to “full faith and credit,” meaning state courts can enforce them.

The Johnsons appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court, arguing that the 1982 Idaho ruling conflicted with a 1997 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling about tribal court jurisdiction, which found that tribal court judgments are recognized by state courts under a different legal standard, “comity.”

Horton, writing for the unanimous court, agreed that the 1982 ruling conflicted with the later 9th Circuit ruling, and the court overturned key parts of the 1982 ruling, Sheppard v. Sheppard. When the Idaho court made that ruling in 1982, it wrote in its opinion, “We believe that this holding will facilitate better relations between the courts of this state and the various tribal courts within Idaho.”

Horton wrote, “Although we value good relations with the tribal courts within Idaho, we are unable to continue to apply the strained construction … that we adopted in Sheppard in order to advance that important objective.”

Instead, Horton applied the 9th Circuit’s standard, and still found that the tribal court has jurisdiction over the Johnsons’ dock and pilings.

The 9th Circuit’s 1997 ruling held that tribal court judgments must be recognized unless specific factors are shown, including that the judgment was obtained by fraud; that it conflicts with another final judgment; or that it would violate the public policy of the United States or the state in question.

Generally, tribes don’t have jurisdiction over nonmembers, Horton wrote, but they do when they’re regulating taxation, licensing, contracts or other issues involving nonmembers who voluntarily enter into relationships with the tribe or its members; or when they’re regulating conduct that “threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe.”

“Both parties agree that the first exception does not apply,” Horton wrote. But the second does, he found, because the tribe owns the riverbed.

“The Johnsons have failed to present any evidence that would support a finding that the tribe does not own the riverbed,” he wrote.

The Johnsons cited a footnote in a 9th Circuit ruling that preceded the landmark 2001 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the tribe owns the lower third of the lake, to try to argue that only the lake as it existed in 1873 was at issue. The footnote didn’t apply to the Johnsons’ case, Horton found, because they “failed to meet their burden of establishing that they have title to the lands lying between the high water mark following construction of the dam and that existing in 1873.”

The Johnsons did prevail on one point, however, as the court ruled that the tribal court’s $17,400 civil penalty against them couldn’t be enforced by the state court. “The civil penalty is not enforceable under principles of comity,” Horton wrote.

Horton cited an 1825 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that held, “The courts of no country execute the penal laws of another,” and said enforcement of the fine fell under that rule.

Attorney Norm Semanko told the AP on Monday that Kenneth Johnson passed away while the case was pending, and that the couple removed the dock but not the piling several years ago, but the court case continued. “This is a huge relief to Donna to not have to pay the fine; she is very pleased with the decision,” Semanko said.