October Term 2015 · Docket 13-1496

Can tribal courts force non-Indians to litigate tort claims?

Dollar General seeks to stop tribal courts from hearing its tort case. The tribe insists its courts hold that power.

Official caption
Dollar General Corp. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Dollar General argues tribal courts cannot force non-Indians to litigate.

    The tribe argues its courts hold inherent sovereign power.

    Justice Sotomayor questioned the assumption that tribal judges lack neutrality.

    Justice Ginsburg asked how the argument fits with prior precedent.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Dollar General wants a federal court to dismiss the tribal case. The tribe wants its court to keep the case. The dispute centers on tribal sovereign authority over non-members.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 7, 2015.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Dollar General wants the case moved to federal court.

The tribe wants its court to keep the case.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Dollar General argues tribal courts lack jurisdiction over non-Indians.

The tribe argues its courts hold mandatory jurisdiction over such claims.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Kennedy questioned the assumption that tribal judges lack neutrality.

Justice Ginsburg asked how the argument reconciles with prior precedent.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the reach of tribal judicial power. It determines whether non-Indians face tribal courts for torts. The outcome shapes the balance of federal and tribal authority.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON