Lil’ Brown Smoke Shop v. Wasden

The court denied a motion for a preliminary injunction by a smoke shop seeking to prevent enforcement of Idaho’s Minor’s Access Act. Here are the materials:

An excerpt:

Here, Defendants argue that, if the Bracker balancing test applies, the permit requirement is an important state interest outweighing the tribal interests. Specifically, Defendants argue that the permit requirement allows the State of Idaho to control the ability of minors to obtain tobacco by ensuring that the Department of Health and Welfare has a central repository of all businesses marketing tobacco to Idaho residents with a uniform set of data which facilities compliance and monitoring. Defendants contend this interest outweighs the relevant tribal interests identified by Plaintiff, partially because the burden on Plaintiff in submitting annually to a no-charge permit is non existent. However, Defendants do not address Plaintiff’s contention that the right to make employment decisions, business decisions, and the right to exclude persons from the reservation are longstanding tribal interests that, although they do not singularly justify non compliance with the MAA, must be balanced in the Bracker test particularly with respect to the other contested provisions of the MAA. The Court agrees that the Bracker test should be applied.

The Court finds that, even though the Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits with respect to the permit requirement is low, the likelihood of success with respect to the other provisions of the MAA is more plausible. However, Plaintiff has failed to clearly demonstrate that it is likely to succeed on these claims. Thus, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction on Plaintiff’s tribal sovereignty challenges will be denied.

Here is the opinion in Lil’ Brown Smoke Shop v. Wasden (D. Idaho) in which the court rejected a motion to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment and Young absention grounds. An excerpt:

Based on the aforementioned cases and standards, and the arguments of the parties with respect to whether the Act regulates on or off reservation activity, the Court disagrees with Defendants and finds that the issue of the state’s jurisdiction is not conclusive. Here, like in Fort Belnap, Sycuan, and Seneca-Cayuga, the question of whether the state law is enforceable against Plaintiff is a federal question in an area, tribal law, where federal interests predominate. Thus, the Court finds that the State of Idaho’s interest in this litigation is not sufficiently important to warrant Younger abstention in light of the predominant federal question regarding the State of Idaho’s jurisdiction to enforce the Act. Thus, as Defendants have failed to prove all requirements for Younger abstention, the Court will deny Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 8 ) with respect to Defendants Wasden and Armstrong.

Lil Brown Smoke Shack DCT Order

Idaho Motion to Dismiss

Smoke Shack Opposition

Idaho Reply Brief