Tribal Nation courts possess jurisdiction over family law matters involving Tribal citizens, including divorces. In 2008, Robert William Tix — a member of the Prairie Island Mdewakanton Dakota Indian Community — and Kristin Ann Tix (now known as McGowan) married and started a Tribal family. They had three Tribal citizen children together, and the family—including McGowan—lived primarily off Prairie Island Tribal resources.
BACKGROUND:
This case arises out of the marriage between R. Tix and K. McGowan. Tix is a Prairie Island Mdewakanton Dakota Indian Community (PIIC) citizen. McGowan is not. The couple have three children, and they chose to enroll the three children in the Tribe. During the marriage, McGowan lived predominantly—and sometimes solely— off of resources PIIC provided to her because she married a tribal citizen and had tribal citizen children.
Tix and McGowan filed for divorce. Apparently by coincidence, they did so on the same day. McGowan filed in state court; Tix filed in Tribal court. The state court determined that PIIC possessed jurisdiction over the divorce, and it deferred to the Tribal court upon concluding “the Tribal court would be a more convenient forum for the parties to proceed with the custody matters in their dissolution.” After two unsuccessful appeals, McGowan voluntarily dismissed the state case.
McGowan sought to dismiss the divorce action in the Tribal court for lack of jurisdiction. The Tribal trial court denied the motion. Examining U.S. Supreme Court precedent, it determined that the Community possessed jurisdiction because McGowan “voluntarily entered” into “the consensual relationship of marriage” with Tix “and benefitted from his membership and [their] children’s membership in the Community during the marriage.”
The Tribal trial court then proceeded to adjudicate the parties’ divorce, holding a four-day trial. McGowan was represented by counsel and allowed to present extensive evidence, including expert testimony. Following deliberation, the Tribal trial court issued a detailed and methodical 65-page opinion deciding the complex issues presented by the divorce.
McGowan then appealed the Tribal trial court’s earlier jurisdictional decision; she did not challenge the court’s ultimate opinion in the case, just its jurisdiction to make that decision. The PIIC Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the Community possessed jurisdiction over the divorce because McGowan entered into a “consensual” and “contractual” relationship with Tix through marriage. It also determined that “‘Native Tribes … possess the inherent sovereign power to adjudicate child custody disputes’ involving Tribal children.”
After the Tribal Court of Appeals issued its decision, McGowan filed a federal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. She alleged that “[t]he Tribal Court exceeded the lawful limits of its jurisdiction.” The U.S. district court roundly rejected McGowan’s argument and concluded that the exercise of Tribal jurisdiction was proper.
McGowan now appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. She argues that the Tribal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the divorce. The Native American Rights Fund and co-counsel Messerli Kramer, PA, represent Tix in the Eighth Circuit as he defends Tribal jurisdiction.
CASE UPDATES:
March 2025: Tix case reaches the Eight Circuit
Despite four consecutive losses, McGowan now asks the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to upend well-settled law. Her arguments directly attack Tribal sovereignty and would carry significant consequences for Tribes and Native families in the Eighth Circuit.
NARF has briefed the court on the well-established precedent affirming Tribal court jurisdiction in the family law context.
More Cases
