Order list here.
Question Presented: Whether the sovereign immunity of an Indian tribe bars individual-capacity damages actions against tribal employees for torts committed within the scope of their employment.
Previous coverage here.
tribal sovereign immunity
Federal Court Orders Tribe to Engage in Discovery over Immunity Waiver
Here are the materials in Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians v. State of Washington (W.D. Wash.):
Seventh Circuit Holds Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act Does Not Abrogate Tribal Immunity
Connecticut Superior Court (again) Acknowledges Tribal Immunity in Great Plains Lending v. State Dept. of Banking
Here are the materials:
By of background, in November 2015, the Connecticut Superior Court issued a decision in the Otoe-Missouria Tribe’s favor, remanding a prior state agency decision which purported to subject the Tribe’s lending entities and Chairman Shotton to civil and injunctive damages. Following this ruling, the Connecticut Department of Banking attempted to run afoul of the Court’s prior decision and potentially subject the Tribe to participating in its administrative proceedings through discovery and possible depositions.
On August 31, 2016, the Connecticut Superior Court rejected this attempt and issued another ruling the Tribe’s favor and reaffirming its decision from November 2016 and granting the Tribe’s most recent challenge by issuing another strong decision in its favor. In doing so, the Court explicitly stated that the Tribe’s rights were “substantially prejudiced” as a result of the Department’s actions.
Federal Court Dismisses Pipeline Condemnation Action under Rule 19, Tribal Immunity
Here are the materials in Enable Oklahoma Intrastate Transmission LLC v. 25 Foot Wide Easement (W.D. Okla.):
Ninth Circuit Holds Removal of Suit to Federal Court Does Not Abrogate Tribal Immunity
Here is the opinion in Bodi v. Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians.
From the court’s syllabus:
The panel reversed the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act and California law on the ground of tribal sovereign immunity.
Following the Eleventh Circuit, the panel held that a federally recognized Indian tribe does not waive its sovereign immunity from suit by exercising its right to remove to federal court a case filed against it in state court. The panel concluded that the act of removal does not express the clear and unequivocal waiver that is required for a tribe to relinquish its immunity.
The panel remanded the case, leaving it to the district court to address on remand any remaining immunity issues.
Briefs here.
California Appellate Court Finds Waiver of Tribal Immunity in Dispute over Authority of Council to Waive Immunity
Here is the opinion in Findleton v. Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians (Cal. Ct. App.).
An excerpt:
This appeal requires us to determine whether a Native American tribe known as the Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians (the Tribe) validly waived its sovereign immunity for purposes of the enforcement by construction contractor Robert Findleton (Findleton) of arbitration provisions in contracts between them. Findleton claims the Tribe waived its sovereign immunity when its Tribal Council entered into, and then amended, contracts with Findleton containing arbitration clauses and also adopted a resolution expressly waiving sovereign immunity to allow arbitration of disputes under the contracts. The Tribe disagrees, arguing the Tribal Council lacked authority to waive the Tribe’s immunity and therefore any such waivers were invalid, because the power to waive the Tribe’s immunity had not been properly delegated to the Tribal Council in accordance with the procedures specified by the Tribe’s constitution. The superior court agreed with the Tribe and held that it lacked jurisdiction over Findleton’s claims because there had been no valid waiver of the Tribe’s sovereign immunity. Findleton appealed.
Seminole Tribes Prevails in Sovereign Immunity Dispute with Slip and Fall Plaintiffs
Here is the opinion in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Schinnler (Fla. Ct. App.).
An excerpt:
Here, the tribe established that no resolution, ordinance or compact including a waiver of immunity was enforceable in 2009 when the plaintiff’s claim arose. The resolution (No. C–195–06) passed by the Tribal Council authorized the tribe to enter into the 2007 compact. While the 2007 compact provided a limited waiver of immunity, our supreme court held the compact invalid. Crist, 999 So.2d at 616. The tribe also provided an affidavit attesting that no waiver of sovereign immunity was in effect when the claim arose. The plaintiff did not rebut this affidavit, nor could she have done so.
There is no factual dispute. The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law when it denied the tribe’s motion to dismiss. This harm is irreparable if immunity is not given its intended effect.
California Appellate Court Orders Cal. Miwok to Pay Costs in Revenue Sharing Matter
Here is the unpublished opinion in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. California Gambling Control Commission (Cal. Ct. App. — 4th Dist.): D068909
An excerpt:
Plaintiff California Valley Miwok Tribe (the Tribe) appeals from the trial court’s award of costs in favor of defendant California Gambling Control Commission (the Commission), following the Commission’s successful summary judgment against the Tribe in its lawsuit seeking an order requiring the Commission to pay over the funds to the Tribe from the Indian Gaming Revenue Sharing Trust Fund (RSTF). The Tribe contends that it is protected by tribal sovereign immunity from incurring any obligation to pay costs to the prevailing defendant in a lawsuit that it initiated. As we will explain, the Tribe’s position lacks merit, and accordingly we affirm the award of costs.
Related materials here.
SCOTUS Petition for Cert in Lewis v. Clarke
Download Petition for Writ of Certiorari (PDF)
Link to briefs previously posted here.
Question Presented: Whether the sovereign immunity of an Indian tribe bars individual-capacity damages actions against tribal employees for torts committed within the scope of their employment.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.