Initial Observations about Lewis v. Clarke

Opinion and materials here.

The initial impact could be very big. The holding is pretty broad, bringing in the doctrine of official immunity to the tribal context without the same grounding or context as state and federal official immunity doctrines. Moreover, there is no on, off reservation distinction. So on-rez torts might be an issue. 

I anticipate dozens of plaintiffs’ lawyers packaging complaints against tribal employees on a wide variety of issues to test how wide the lower courts will interpret this decisions. Civil rights, contract breaches, trespass to property, and of course tort claims. I suppose the real question is whether any tort claims against tribal officials anywhere involve a tribe’s sovereign interest. I imagine insurance companies will be calling their tribal insured right quick, and vice versa.

Another open question is whether nonmember employees sued for tort in Indian country can be sued in state courts. I think not under precedents governing Indian country suits where a tribal defendant is present, but I’m not so sure about nonmember employees. Could be a lot of litigation about questions like these.

Long term, things probably will settle down. Tribes already insure themselves from the actions of their employees. Maybe the cost of business will go up some, but I don’t anticipate terrific impacts there. Just a lot of uncertainty for a few years until everyone’s used to the new regime.

As should be unsurprising to TT readers, this case involved a confluence of Justices that disapprove of governmental immunity (Ginsburg), the conservative wing of the Court that almost never rules in favor of tribal interests, and bad optics for tribal interests. Moreover, anyone who cares about government and commercial accountability for bad actions (as one should expect from Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg) should be happy. It just smells off that SCOTUS as an institution seems to strive to protect private commercial actors from suits but does a 180 with tribal commercial activities.

I admit to being disappointed the Court cared not at all that the Tribe had set up a tribal court process to resolve these claims. This was just straight up gamesmanship by the plaintiffs’ counsel, who might have waited on purpose to bring this claim in state court where there was a two year statute of limitations as opposed to the Mohegan one year statute. There, I said it. Oh well. All the effort that tribes made to set up tort claims ordinances might have been a significant waste of time and effort. It remains to be seen.

Unanimous SCOTUS Rules Against Tribe in Lewis v. Clarke

Here is the opinion.

Materials here.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Sun v. Mashantucket

Here is today’s order list.

Cert petition here.

Ninth Circuit Materials in Lyon v. Gila River Indian Community

Here:

Gila River Opening Brief

Lyon Answer Brief

Gila River Reply Brief

Oral argument video here.

Prior CA9 opinion materials here.

Here are the issues in the case, according to the tribe: Continue reading

Ninth Circuit Materials in False Claims Act Appeal against Salish Kootenai College

Here are the briefs in Cain v. Salish Kootenai College:

Opening Brief

College Brief

CSKT Brief

Reply

Oral argument video here.

Lower court materials in Cain v. Salish Kootenai College (D. Mont.):

16 Motion to Dismiss

21 Opposition

26 Reply

30 CSKT Amicus Brief

39 DCT Order

Ninth Circuit Materials in Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Laguna Construction Co.

Here are the briefs:

Opening Brief

Others briefs TK.

Lower court materials tag here.

Skokomish Suit against Suquamish Council Members Dismissed in Federal Court

Here are the materials in Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Forsman (W.D. Wash.):

15 Motion to Dismiss

19 Response

20-2 Sklallam Amicus Brief

22 Reply

34 DCT Order

Former Tribal Employee’s False Claims Act Suit to Proceed against Individuals, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe Dismissed

Here are the materials in Dahlstrom v. Sauk-Suiattle Tribe (W.D. Wash.):

13 Motion to Dismiss

15 Motion for TRO

19 Response to 15

20 Reply in Support of 15

22 DCT Order Denying 15

27 Response to 13

28 Reply in Support of 13

39 DCT Order on 13

Calif. COA Decides Scope of Tribal Immunity Waiver Matter

Here is the unpublished opinion in Federal Indians of Graton Rancheria v. Kenwood Investments (Cal. Ct. App. — First Dist.):

Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria v. Kenwood Investments

An excerpt:

The trial court’s ruling that the Tribe waived sovereign immunity with respect to Amendment No. 2 is affirmed. We reverse the award of attorney fees. All other aspects of the judgment remain undisturbed.

Federal Court Dismisses Railroad Expansion Project Suit under Rule 19 for Failure to Join Indispensable Tribes

Here are the materials in Union Pacific Railroad v. Runyon (D. Or.):

28 Tribal Motion to Dismiss

42 Response

44 Reply

56 DCT Order