sovereign immunity – Page 121

News Coverage of Armijo v. Laguna Pueblo

February 18, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

An excerpt from the ABQ Journal article:

A land dispute between Laguna Pueblo and a rancher prompted the New Mexico Court of Appeals to rule that tribal sovereignty shields tribes and pueblos from lawsuits involving lands they own outside their reservations.

The dispute centers on a 640-acre property in the Mount Taylor foothills. Cibola County rancher Robert Armijo contends he bought the property in 1994 from the Cebolleta Land Grant and has a warranty deed to prove it.

The Pueblo of Laguna claims the parcel is part of 8,300 acres the pueblo purchased in 2008 from Silver Dollar Ranch LLC.

In a Dec. 6 opinion, the Appeals Court found a district court judge lacked jurisdiction to decide who owns the property because the pueblo enjoys immunity from lawsuits, even if the land is outside its boundaries.

A legal concept called tribal sovereign immunity has long protected tribes and pueblos from lawsuits on tribal lands, which are held in trust by the U.S. Department of the Interior.

An attorney representing Armijo said the Court of Appeals ruling extends tribal sovereign immunity to “fee lands” purchased on the open market by tribes and pueblos but not held in trust.

“The decision is problematic,” Belen attorney Tibo Chavez said. “Sovereign immunity elevates the tribes above constitutionally protected property rights.”

The ruling may forestall any type of legal claim related to off-reservation properties owned by tribes and pueblos, he said.

“What if someone was injured on this land?” Chavez said. “Are there applications of negligence law that would apply?”

Albuquerque attorney Daniel Rey-Bear, who represents Pueblo of Laguna, declined to comment on the case.

Continue reading →

Klamath Claims Committee v. U.S. Cannot Proceed Without Klamath Tribes

February 18, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Klamath Claims Committee v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

DCT Order Granting Partial Dismissal for US

USA Motion to Dismiss KCC Complaint

Klamath Claims Committee Response

USA Reply Brief

Tenth Circuit Denies En Banc Review in BMG v. Chukchansi; Expect Cert Petition Soon

February 16, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is that order: Order Denying Petition for En Banc Rehearing.

Here are our earlier posts: en banc materials, and Tenth Circuit panel materials.

Commentaries on the Eighth Circuit’s Amerind Decision

February 16, 2011February 16, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

We’ve received several comments about the case worth reposting here.

From an Amerind rep:

Amerind’s policies require Amerind to pay all judgments rendered against its policyholders. For over 25 years, Amerind has consistently honored this commitment.

The United States Housing and Urban Development has also approved and recognized Amerind as the only authorized insurance entity for Indian country.

The Eighth Circuit’s decision applies in a very narrow set of circumstances—where suit is brought directly against Amerind rather than the policyholder.

From Richard Monette:

It seems that to the extent Amerind is in fact “self-insuring” it is indeed acting more as a government than a business and that such activity may be cloaked in the the charter Tribes’ immunity. However, it also seems that to the extent that Amerind is not self-insuring, it is indeed acting more as a business than a government and may not carry the charter Tribes’ immunity beyond the governing territories of those Tribes. Is a company not chartered by Turtle Mountain but doing business in Turtle Mountain really “self-insuring”? Note to Turtle Mountaineers: if you wish for these types of catastrophes to be covered by insurance, your tribe/housing authority must establish its own section 477 self-insurance entity, as each tribe should, the likely original intent of the law.

And from Richard Phelps (previously and erroneously noted as Richard Monette):

I am a firm believer in sovereign immonity but cases like this that push the limits, put that immunity in grave danger.
Also why would you purchase insurance from a company that can not be sued if it refuses to pay a claim. I guess State farm would like this deal.

And a link to a commentary by Gabe Galanda on his blog. His post is titled, “Amerind Should Clearly Waive Its Immunity in Insurance Contracts.”

Eighth Circuit (2-1) Holds Amerind Insurance Co. Immune From Suit in Tribal and Federal Courts

February 15, 2011February 15, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Very important decision. Our prior commentary on this case is here.

Here are the materials:

Amerind v. Malaterre CA8 Opinion

Amerind Opening Brief

Malaterre Brief

Amerind Reply

Malaterre Letter Brief re Immunity

Amerind Brief re Immunity

News Coverage of Payday Lenders and Indian Tribal Enterprises

February 14, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are two major articles from the last few days:

WSJ Article on Payday lenders

Denver Post Article on Payday Loans

Peabody Coal and Navajo Nation File Cert Petitions against EEOC over Navajo Tribal Employment Preference

February 7, 2011February 5, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here is the Peabody Coal petition: Peabody Coal Cert Petition.

The question presented:

Where the EEOC contends that conduct required by a tribal coal mining lease provision mandated by the Secretary of the Interior violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which statute expressly bars the EEOC from suing the Secretary to enforce Title VII, does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 permit the coal mining lessee or the tribal lessor to implead the Secretary as a third-party defendant?

And here is the Navajo cert petition: Navajo Nation Cert Petition

The questions presented:

1. May the sovereign immunity of the United States and of a federally recognized Indian tribe, preserved in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, be abrogated by application of Rules 14 and 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?

2. May a court use Rule 14 to permit or require a party to implead the Secretary of the Interior in a case where the applicable statute does not confer a right of contribution?

Lower court materials here.

And here is Dr. Ray Austin’s fine history of the tribal law in question. And my paper from 7 years ago on Rule 19 and Indian tribes. [Read my paper and you’ll know how this is going to turn out.]