tribal sovereign immunity

Missouri Courts Interpret Tribal Sovereign Immunity for First Time

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The case is Ogden v. Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska. From the opinion:

In March of 2006, Larry Ogden, after communication with the tribal chairman of the “Iowa Tribe Executive Committee,” moved to Missouri to accept employment as manager of a truck stop near I-29 in Holt County, Missouri, known as the “Squaw Creek Eagles Nest Plaza.” Several months later, Ogden was terminated from employment. Ogden sued the “Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska” (“Iowa Tribe”) for breach of an employment agreement and for wrongful discharge. The Iowa Tribe filed a motion to dismiss the petition based upon tribal sovereign immunity. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. Ogden appeals. We affirm.

Carls v. Blue Lake Housing Authority Cert Opp

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

carls-cert-opp

The rest of the materials are here.

Colorado ex rel. Suthers v. Cash Advance — Rent a Tribe Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

We have written about this case before — the question of whether Cash Advance and others who are part-owned by Indian tribes can avoid suit from the Colorado AG for unfair consumer practices (yecch).

The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision not to quash the subpoena directed against the tribe-owned Cash Advance defendant in this opinion — cash-advance-colorado-coa-opinion

The appellate briefs are here, and an additional amicus brief is here — amicus-brief-supporting-cash-advance (strangely, the brief doesn’t actually say who the amicus is…).

Native American Distributing v. Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco — Briefs in Tenth Circuit

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

This is a case involving the sovereign immunity defense of a tribal corporation before the Tenth Circuit. Oral argument was in March before Judges Briscoe, Gorsuch and Parker. Here are the materials (updated Nov. 18, 2008):

DCT Opinion

Appellant Brief

Appellee Brief

Appellant Reply Brief

Parks v. Tulalip — Sovereign Immunity of Tribal Casino

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Parks v. Tulalip Resort Casino, in which the district court for the Western District of Washington dismissed a tort claim against the casino on the grounds of sovereign immunity.

Tulalip Motion to Dismiss

Parks Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

DCT Order to Show Cause

Parks Response to Order to Show Cause

DCT Order Dismissing Claim

Allen v. Mayhew – Section 1981 Claims Against Tribal Individuals

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

The E.D. Cal. refused to dismiss the Section 1981 claims against tribal casino employees on the grounds of sovereign immunity in Allen v. Mayhew. The underlying claim involves the plaintiff’s termination from employment with the tribal casino.

Here are the materials:

Mayhew Motion to Dismiss

Continue reading →

Kalispel v. Moe — Tribal Sovereign Immunity

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Eastern District of Washington dismissed a permissive counterclaim against the Kalispel Tribe on sovereign immunity grounds. Here are the materials:

DCT Order – Kalispel Tribe v. Moe

Kalispel Motion for Summary Judgment

Moe Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment

Kalispel Reply

Goldsmith on the Agua Caliente State Election Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Gary Goldsmith has published “Big Spenders in State Elections–Has Financial Participation by Indian Tribes Defined the Limits of Tribal Sovereign Immunity From Suit” in the William Mitchell Law Review.

From the introduction:

In every election cycle, Indian tribes vigorously attempt to influence such critical matters of state governance as to who will be the state’s governor, who will be elected to the state’s legislative bodies, and what will be the provisions of the state’s constitution. These incursions into the realm of state governance have renewed questions about the sovereignty of Indian tribes in relation to the states’ sovereignty.
In order to understand those conflicting rights, this article will review the historical roots of legal doctrine regarding the position of Indian tribes with respect to the United States government and each state’s government. It will then trace significant doctrinal changes that arose as the result of changing political and cultural attitudes toward Indians. Finally, it will address new theories raised in Agua Caliente v. California FPPC and will comment on the California Supreme Court’s resolution of the constitutional issues and the parties’ eventual Stipulation for Judgment in that matter.

Fenner on Indian Country in Cyber Space

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Ben Fenner of Fredericks Peebles & Morgan, LLP has published “Indian Country in Cyber Space: Bella Hess and Commerce Clause Constraints on Interstate, Mail Order Transactions” in the Albany Law Review.

From the introduction:

When political processes fail, the rule of law prevails or people rise to power. When the political process fails between tribes and the United States, defined as it is by federal statutes and case law, there is no rule of law and, therefore, leaders emerge. So it is that the panoply of tribal leaders is vast and ranges from ordinary men and women in seemingly mundane circumstances to warriors and negotiators who are household names.

***

The ability of the government to justify the annihilation of whole cultures was, and is today, driven by a perceived lack of resources (a euphemism for greed). And no resource is as scarce today, it seems, as money; few areas of federal Indian law are as contentious as states’ ability to tax and regulate tribal activity. While tribal immunity from state taxation is well-settled, what of state ability to tax Internet transactions originating on reservations? Part II of this Article is an overview of preemption in federal Indian law. Part III looks specifically to taxation and regulation of mail-order transactions. Part IV concludes that tribes may structure online transactions fulfilled on-reservation to preclude state taxation.

Wagoner County Rural Water Dist. v. Cherokee Nation Dismissed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Northern District of Oklahoma dismissed the Cherokee Nation as a party from this lawsuit — Wagoner v. United States — on the grounds that the McCarran Amendment did not abrograte tribal sovereign immunity.  The case is ongoing with the rest of the defendants.

Complaint

Cherokee Nation Motion to Dismiss

Wagoner Response Brief

DCT Order