Nevada v. Hicks — Stevens, J., Concurring

Summary

Stevens, J., concurs in the judgment but disagrees with the majority’s conclusion that tribal courts may not exercise jurisdiction over § 1983 claims. He argues tribal courts generally have general jurisdiction unless federal law dictates otherwise, and he considers the majority’s § 1983 discussion unnecessary given Strate. O’Connor, Souter, and Ginsburg each wrote separate concurring opinions addressing the application of Montana and land status.