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.
August 2025: Defending Tribal Court Jurisdiction
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.
In 2022, Tix and McGowan each filed for divorce. Tix filed in Prairie Island’s court, while McGowan filed in Minnesota state court. McGowan argued that the Tribal court lacked jurisdiction over her because she is not a Prairie Island member. Every court to consider her argument, however, rejected her argument. The Minnesota state court determined that the Tribal court had jurisdiction and was the more convenient forum to resolve the divorce. The Tribal trial court and the Tribal court of appeals agreed. And when McGowan brought a federal challenge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, the federal court also determined that the Prairie Island Tribal court possesses jurisdiction over the couple’s divorce. These courts applied a long line of precedent recognizing Tribal court jurisdiction over domestic affairs involving Tribal members — especially when, like here, the distribution of Tribal resources and the care and custody of Tribal member children are at stake.
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. The Native American Rights Fund and co-counsel Messerli Kramer, PA, represent Tix in the Eighth Circuit as he defends Tribal jurisdiction. NARF has briefed the court on the well-established precedent affirming Tribal court jurisdiction in the family law context.
October 2025: Making the Case for Tribal Court Jurisdiction
On October 21, 2025, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit heard argument in Tix v. Tix. NARF Staff Attorney Leonard Powell delivered exceptionally strong advocacy, clearly laying out why the case belongs in Tribal court. As Powell emphasized, “The question is whether there is concurrent Tribal jurisdiction over a divorce that involves the distribution of Tribal resources and the care and custody of Tribal children, where the state has recognized that the Tribal court is the more appropriate forum.”
At its core, the case asks the court to affirm Tribal jurisdiction in matters that directly impact Tribal citizens, Tribal resources, and the well-being of Tribal children: areas where Tribal courts have long held expertise and inherent authority.
Following the hearing, the court will consider the arguments presented and determine whether the Tribal court possesses jurisdiction. A decision affirming Tribal jurisdiction would not only ensure that this family’s case is heard in the most culturally appropriate and legally sound venue, but it would also reinforce the broader recognition of Tribal courts’ authority in family law matters.
You can listen to the hearing on the court’s website.
More Cases
