Oglala Sioux Tribe litigates sovereignty on two fronts

PINE RIDGE— A federal judge has cleared the way for an Oglala Sioux Tribal Court lawsuit to proceed against a reservation lender, ruling that the case belongs in tribal court and not in federal court, and that the tribe’s civil jurisdiction over a non-Indian lender is proper under long-standing Supreme Court doctrine.

In an Oct. 22 order, U.S. District Judge Camela C. Theeler dismissed a bid by Mazaska Owecaso Otipi Financial, Inc., a South Dakota nonprofit and on-reservation mortgage lender, to yank a borrower’s case out of Oglala Sioux Tribal Court and into federal court. The lender argued the borrower’s claims were really federal claims under RESPA — the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act — and that only a federal forum could hear them. The judge disagreed on both counts: the tribal complaint sounds in contract and good faith dealing, not federal statute; and even if federal issues were implicated, the Tribe’s courts have adjudicatory authority here because the dispute arises from a consensual business relationship on tribal land. (Order, Oct. 22, 2025.)

That “consensual relationship” language comes from the Supreme Court’s Montana v. United States framework. In Montana (1981), the Court said tribes generally lack civil authority over nonmembers unless one of two exceptions applies. The first Montana exception — the one in play here — allows tribal regulation and adjudication when a non-member “enters consensual relationships with the tribe or its members, through commercial dealing, contracts, leases, or other arrangements.

RESPA, for its part, is a federal consumer protection law that governs mortgage settlement practices. Among other things, it requires disclosures of settlement costs, prohibits kickbacks, and limits escrow accounts. It’s implemented by Regulation X and enforced by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Judge Theeler’s ruling reaffirms that when a non-tribal lender purposefully does business on the reservation — and even contracts for tribal-court forum selection — the Tribe’s courts can hear disputes that grow from that relationship. In plain English: if you set up shop on Pine Ridge, write the mortgages, collect the payments, and place your office on tribal land, you should expect to answer in Oglala Sioux Tribal Court when a tribal member alleges breach.

The Mazaska-Montileaux case arrives amid a broader litigation campaign by the Oglala Sioux Tribe to secure what tribal leaders describe as treaty-based, trust-duty funding for public safety. The Tribe first sued the Interior Department and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in 2022, arguing federal underfunding had left Pine Ridge dangerously exposed. In May 2023, U.S. District Judge Roberto A. Lange recognized, at the preliminary-injunction stage, that the United States owes a treaty-based duty to fund tribal law enforcement on Pine Ridge and ordered the government to meet with the Tribe to amend contracts to reflect “what amount is necessary.” In a press release after that ruling, Tribal President Frank Star Comes Out said, “We are hopeful the United States abides by the Court’s direction immediately,” adding that if it doesn’t, the Tribe “will look forward to proving at trial” the government’s violations. (Peebles Bergin, May 25, 2023).

The Tribe returned to court again this month, filing another federal lawsuit pressing the same problem: not enough officers, not enough dollars, not enough protection. In the new complaint, the Tribe calls the trust obligation “the foundation” of the federal– tribal relationship and documents chronic shortfalls that leave emergency calls unanswered for too long. (“Many E-911 calls go unanswered,” the pleading says.)

The public-safety strain is no abstraction. In congressional testimony last year, then-acting OST police chief John Pettigrew told House appropriators that his department was funded at roughly 15% of need. “Five minutes is a lifetime when you’re fighting for your life, let alone 30 minutes,” he said, before driving the point home: “Fifteen percent is a joke.” (North Dakota Monitor, May 11, 2024).

Tie those threads together and a pattern emerges. The Tribe’s federal suits focus on the government’s duty — rooted in 19th-century treaties and the trust responsibility — to ensure baseline policing. The Mazaska matter, by contrast, concerns the Tribe’s inherent civil authority to adjudicate disputes that stem from on-reservation, consensual commerce with tribal members. The first Montana exception is precisely about that kind of relationship, and the judge’s order treats it as such.

It also bears noting that the borrower’s claims in tribal court are traditional common-law claims — breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing — even if the mortgage language references RESPA concepts like escrow caps and accounting. Federal flavoring doesn’t automatically federalize a contract suit, and Judge Theeler said as much in finding no removable federal question. (Order, Oct. 22, 2025.)

On public safety, the Tribe’s newest lawsuit reprises the core claims that moved the needle in 2023: that treaties and the trust responsibility obligate the United States to fund policing at a level that actually protects people. If the court again credits those arguments, the remedy phase — translating treaty promises into officer counts, equipment, training and detention capacity — becomes difficult, practical work.

On private-party disputes, the Mazaska order is a reminder that the Oglala Sioux Tribal Court is not a symbolic forum. It’s where on-reservation deals with tribal members are supposed to be sorted out, particularly when the parties’ own documents point there. Under the first Montana exception, that’s not a reach — it’s the rule.

The throughline here is jurisdiction with a purpose. The Tribe is pressing the federal government to keep treaty promises on policing, and it’s insisting that private actors who profit on Pine Ridge respect tribal law and forums when disputes arise. The federal court’s message in the Mazaska case — take it to tribal court — returns the focus where it belongs: on a local judiciary hearing local facts, applying laws that fit the place where the deals were made, and the harm is felt.

(James Giago Davies is an enrolled member of OST. Contact him at skindiesel@msn.com)

The post Oglala Sioux Tribe litigates sovereignty on two fronts first appeared on Native Sun News Today.

Visit Original Source