tribal-state tax agreement – Page 2

4. Neither in the district court nor on appeal do Miller, Lanphere, and Matheson allege a separate and distinct claim for injunctive or declaratory relief against the officials qua officials. See Maxwell, —- F.3d —-, 2012 WL 4017462, at *11. We therefore express no opinion as to the viability of such a claim against the officials themselves.

An en banc petition in the Maxwell case is currently pending.

Federal Court Order Memorializing Grant of Injunction against Yakama Tribal Court in Washington-Yakama Tax Dispute

January 14, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here is the order:

DCT Order Granting Washington’s Motion for PI

Briefs and materials here (federal) and here (tribal).

Tribal Court Materials in Yakama v. State of Washington — Fuel Tax Dispute

January 2, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here:

Yakama v Haight Tribal Court Complaint (USDC)

Yakama v Haight Tribal Court TRO (USDC)

Yakama v Haight Tribal Court TRO Motion (USDC)

Related federal court materials are here.

Washington v. Yakama Tribal Court — Dispute over Tribal-State Fuel Tax Agreement

December 29, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in State of Washington v. Yakama Nation Tribal Court (E.D. Wash.):

Washington Complaint

Washington Motion for PI

Yakama Cross Motion

News coverage here.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Tribal Immunity from Antitrust Claims relating to Tribal Tax Agreement

November 13, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher5 Comments

Here is the opinion and materials in Miller v. Wright.

The court’s syllabus:

Affirming the district court’s dismissal of an antitrust action brought by cigarette vendors challenging taxes imposed by virtue of the authority vested in an Indian tribe, the panel held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in light of the tribe’s sovereign immunity. The panel held that the tribe did not implicitly waive its sovereign immunity by agreeing to dispute resolution procedures nor by ceding its authority to Washington State when entering into a cigarette tax contract. The panel also held that federal antitrust law did not explicitly abrogate tribal immunity, and the Sherman Antitrust Act was not a law of general applicability vis-a-vis the tribe. The panel held that tribal officials were protected by the tribe’s sovereign immunity because they acted pursuant to the tribe’s authority. The panel also affirmed the district court’s alternative ruling that the action was barred by res judicata in light of prior litigation in state and tribal courts.

Here are the briefs:

Miller Opening Brief

Puyallup Answer Brief

Miller Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.