fied the statutory requirements for diversity jurisdiction." Congress has amended the diversity statute several times since the development of tribal judicial systems," but it has never expressed any intent to limit the civil jurisdiction of the tribal courts.

Tribal authority over the activities of non-Indians on reservation lands is an important part of tribal sovereignty. See Montana v. United States, 450 U. S. 544, 565-566 (1981); Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U. S. 134, 152-153 (1980); Fisher v. District Court, 424 U. S., at 387-389. Civil jurisdiction over such activities presumptively lies in the tribal courts unless affirmatively limited by a specific treaty provision or federal statute. "Because the Tribe retains all inherent attributes of sovereignty that have not been divested by the Federal Government, the proper inference from silence . . . is that the sovereign power . . . remains intact." Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U. S., at 149, n. 14. See also Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, supra, at 60 (“[A] proper respect both for tribal sovereignty itself and for the plenary authority of Congress in this area cautions that we tread lightly in the absence of clear indications of legislative intent"). In the absence of any indication that Congress intended the diversity statute to limit the jurisdiction of the tribal courts, we decline petitioner's invitation to hold that tribal sovereignty can be impaired in this fashion.

Petitioner also contends that the policies underlying the grant of diversity jurisdiction-protection against local bias and incompetence-justify the exercise of federal jurisdiction

10 In 1924, Congress declared that all Indians born in the United States are United States citizens, see Act of June 2, 1924, ch. 233, 43 Stat. 253, now codified at 8 U. S. C. § 1401, and, therefore, under the Fourteenth Amendment, Indians are citizens of the States in which they reside. There is no indication that this grant of citizenship was intended to affect federal protection of tribal self-government.

"The most recent amendment occurred in 1976. See Act of Oct. 21, 1976, Pub. L. 94-583, §3, 90 Stat. 2891.

in this case. We have rejected similar attacks on tribal court jurisdiction in the past. See, e. g., Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U. S., at 65, and n. 21. The alleged incompetence of tribal courts is not among the exceptions to the exhaustion requirement established in National Farmers Union, 471 U. S., at 856, n. 21,12 and would be contrary to the congressional policy promoting the development of tribal courts. Moreover, the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U. S. C. § 1302, provides non-Indians with various protections against unfair treatment in the tribal courts.

Although petitioner must exhaust available tribal remedies before instituting suit in federal court, the Blackfeet Tribal Courts' determination of tribal jurisdiction is ultimately subject to review. If the Tribal Appeals Court upholds the lower court's determination that the tribal courts have jurisdiction, petitioner may challenge that ruling in the District Court. See National Farmers Union, supra, at 853. Unless a federal court determines that the Tribal Court lacked jurisdiction, however, proper deference to the tribal court system precludes relitigation of issues raised by the LaPlantes' bad-faith claim and resolved in the Tribal Courts.

III

The Court of Appeals correctly recognized that National Farmers Union requires that the issue of jurisdiction be resolved by the Tribal Courts in the first instance. However, the court should not have affirmed the District Court's dis

12 In National Farmers Union, we indicated that exhaustion would not be required where "an assertion of tribal jurisdiction is motivated by a desire to harass or is conducted in bad faith,' or where the action is patently violative of express jurisdictional prohibitions, or where exhaustion would be futile because of the lack of adequate opportunity to challenge the court's jurisdiction." 471 U. S., at 856, n. 21 (citation omitted). While petitioner contends that tribal court jurisdiction over outsiders "is questionable at best," Reply Brief for Petitioner 6, it does not argue that the present action is "patently violative of express jurisdictional prohibitions," nor do we understand it to invoke any of the other exceptions enumerated in National Farmers Union.

Opinion of STEVENS, J.

480 U. S.

missal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction." Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

It is so ordered.

JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

The complaint filed by petitioner in the United States District Court for the District of Montana raised questions concerning the coverage of the insurance policy that petitioner had issued to respondents Wellman Ranch Co. and its owners. Complaint ¶¶8, 9 (App. 3-4). It did not raise any question concerning the jurisdiction of the Blackfeet Tribal Court. For purposes of our decision, it is therefore appropriate to assume that the Tribal Court and the Federal District Court had concurrent jurisdiction over the dispute. The question presented is whether the Tribal Court's jurisdiction is a sufficient reason for requiring the federal court to decline to exercise its own jurisdiction until the Tribal Court has decided the case on the merits. In my opinion it is not.

13 See n. 8, supra.

The Court of Appeals also relied on Woods v. Interstate Realty Co., 337 U. S. 535 (CA9 1949), as a basis for dismissal. Following its earlier decision in R. J. Williams Co. v. Fort Belknap Housing Authority, 719 F. 2d 979, 982 (1983), the court held that diversity jurisdiction would be barred as long as the courts of the State in which the federal court sits would not entertain the suit, apparently assuming that the exercise of federal jurisdiction would contravene a substantive state policy. However, it is not clear that Montana has such a policy, since state-court jurisdiction seems to be precluded by the application of the federal substantive policy of non-infringement, rather than any state substantive policy. See, e. g., Milbank Mutual Ins. Co. v. Eagleman, 218 Mont. 35, 705 P. 2d 1117 (1985).

"On remand, the District Court should consider whether, on the facts of this case, the federal action should be stayed pending further Tribal Court proceedings or dismissed under the prudential rule announced in National Farmers Union.

9

Opinion of STEVENS, J.

A federal court must always show respect for the jurisdiction of other tribunals. Specifically, only in the most extraordinary circumstances should a federal court enjoin the conduct of litigation in a state court or a tribal court. Thus, in National Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe, 471 U. S. 845 (1985), we held that the Federal District Court should not entertain a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Crow Tribal Court until after petitioner had exhausted its remedies in the Tribal Court. Our holding was based on our belief that Congress' policy of supporting tribal selfdetermination "favors a rule that will provide the forum whose jurisdiction is being challenged the first opportunity to evaluate the factual and legal bases for the challenge." Id., at 856 (emphasis added; footnote omitted). We have enforced a similar exhaustion requirement in cases challenging the jurisdiction of state tribunals. See, e. g., Juidice v. Vail, 430 U. S. 327, 335–336 (1977).

The deference given to the deliberations of tribal courts on the merits of a dispute, however, is a separate matter as to which National Farmers Union offers no controlling precedent. Indeed, in holding that exhaustion of the tribal jurisdictional issue was necessary, we explicitly contemplated later federal-court consideration of the merits of the dispute. We noted that "the orderly administration of justice in the federal court will be served by allowing a full record to be developed in the Tribal Court before either the merits or any question concerning appropriate relief is addressed." 471 U. S., at 856 (footnote omitted). I see no reason why tribal courts should receive more deference on the merits than state courts. It is not unusual for a state court and a federal court to have concurrent jurisdiction over the same dispute. In some such cases it is appropriate for the federal court to stay its hand until the state-court litigation has terminated, see, e. g., Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U. S. 800, 813-816 (1976), but as we have consistently held, "[a]bstention from the exercise

Opinion of STEVENS, J.

480 U. S.

of federal jurisdiction is the exception, not the rule." Id., at 813. The mere fact that a case involving the same issue is pending in another court has never been considered a sufficient reason to excuse a federal court from performing its duty "to adjudicate a controversy properly before it." County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co., 360 U. S. 185, 188 (1959). On the contrary, as between state and federal courts, the general rule is that "the pendency of an action in the state court is no bar to proceedings concerning the same matter in the Federal court having jurisdiction. McClellan v. Carland, 217 U. S. 268, 282 (1910). In this case a controversy concerning the coverage of the insurance policy issued to respondents Wellman Ranch Co. and its owners by petitioner is properly before the Federal District Court.* That controversy raises no question concerning the jurisdiction of the Blackfeet Tribal Court.

Adherence to this doctrine, by allowing the declaratory judgment action to proceed in District Court, would imply no disrespect for the Blackfeet Tribe or for its judiciary. It would merely avoid what I regard as the anomalous suggestion that the sovereignty of an Indian tribe is in some respects greater than that of the State of Montana, for example.

Until today, we have never suggested that an Indian tribe's judicial system is entitled to a greater degree of deference than the judicial system of a sovereign State. Today's opinion, however, requires the federal court to avoid adjudicating the merits of a controversy also pending in tribal court although it could reach those merits if the case instead were pending in state court. Thus, although I of course agree with the Court's conclusion that the Federal District Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the case, I respectfully dissent from its exhaustion holding.

*The Court seems to assume that the merits of this controversy are governed by "tribal law." See ante, at 16. I express no opinion on this choice-of-law question.