[PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 99 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :1 0- cv -6 04 83 -WJZ CONTOUR SPA AT THE HARD ROCK, INC., a Fl or id a co rp or at io n, Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , ve rs us SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA, a fed eral ly recog ni zedInd ia n t rib e, MITCHELL CYPRESS , et al ., Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st30 , 20 12 ) Befo re MAR CUS an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d EVANS, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * MARC US, Cir cu itJu dg e:
Honora ble Orinda

Evans, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Geor g ia, sitting by

desig nation. Case: 11-11997 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 1 of 28Thi s ca se ari se s o utof alea si ng ag reem en t b etweenCo nt ou r Sp a

(“ Co nt ou r”) a ndth e Sem in ol e Trib e o f Fl or id a (“ th e Trib e”) t ha t turne d s ou r. Co nt ou r ap pe al s fr om

a di st ric t co urt o rd er d is m is si ng it s Am en de d C om pl ai ntfor la ckof s ub

ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on on acco un t o f th e Trib e’s so ve rei gn imm un it y . Co nt ou r of

fers th ree r eas on s t o a vo idimm un ity : fi rs t, an d m os t b as ic , Con to ur cl ai m s t ha t t he Trib e’s rem ov al of t hi s ca se to fed eral co urt co ns ti tu te s a v ol un ta ry waiv er o f th e Trib e’s imm un ity , rel y in g o n t he Supr em e Co urt’s Ele ve nt h Am en dm en t ca se of Lap id es v. Bd . of R eg en ts of t he Uni v. Sys. of Ga., 53 5 U.S. 61 3 (2 00 2) ; Co nt ou r al so says th atCo ng res s h as au th or iz edit s s ui t b y crea ti ng an im pl ie d c au se of a ct io n u nd er t he Ind ia n C iv il Rig ht s Act ; an d fi na ll y , Con to ur arg ue s t ha t p rin ci pl es of e qu it ab le est op pe l p rev en t t he Trib e fro m ass ert in g imm un it y . The di stric t co urt re

jecte d a ll th ree a rg um en ts , andwe no w affi rm . Becau se th e p ro bl em s o f in co ns is te nc y an d u nf ai rn es s t ha t wer e in he ren t i n t he pro cedur al po stur e o f Lap id es are ab se nthe re, an d b ecau se anInd ia n t rib e’s so ve rei gn imm un it y is of afar d iff

eren t ch arac te r th an a st at e’s Elev en th Am en dm en t imm un it y , we dec li ne to ex te ndLapi de s. As forCo nt ou r’s In di an Civ il Rig ht s Act cl ai m , itm

us t fa il be cau se th e Supr em e Co urt h as alr ead y he ldth atInd ia n t rib es are i m m un e fro m su itun de r th e st atut e. Fin al ly, th e equi tabl e es to pp el cla im is
2 Case: 11-11997 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 2 of 28un av ai labl e b ecau se itis gro un de d o n awaiv er p ro vi si on co nt ai ne d wi th in a le as e

ag reem en t t ha t i s wh ol ly inv al idas am at te r of fed eral law. I. Bec au se we are re vi ewin g t he di st ric t co urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng th e tr ib al de fen da nt s’ m ot io ns to di sm is s, we t ak e as tru e th e fac ts as a ll eg edin Co nt ou r’s
co m pl ai ntan d a tt ach edex hi bi ts . See Gro ss m an v. Nat io ns ba nk , N.A., 22 5 F .3d 12 28 , 12 31 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (p er cu ria m). The Se m in ol e Trib e o f Fl or id a is a fed eral ly recog ni zedInd ia n t rib e th atown s an d o pe rat es th e Sem in ol e HardRo ck Hot el an d C as in o i n Ho ll ywoo d, Fl or id a. Co nt ou r op erat eda sp a fac il it y lo cat ed in th e HardRo ckfro m

May 200 4 t hr ou gh Marc h 2 01 0 p ur su an t t o alo ng -te rm le as e th atpro vi de d fo r an in it ia l p eri odof t en y ears fol lo wedby four ren ewal te rm s o f fi ve y ears each
. Inth e le as e th e Trib e ex pr es sl y waiv edit s s ov erei gn imm un it y co nc ern in g
an y laws ui ts Co nt ou r m ig htbri ng ba se d o n t he Trib e’s de fau ltor b reac h o f th e le as e ag reem en t. Mo stpe rti ne nt ly, ho wev er, t he en ti re l eas e’s va li di ty w as 1
Specifica lly , the lease provides that if a number of pr ocedur al re quirements ar e met, the 1 Tribe “ consents to the jurisdiction of, to be sued in a nd to acc ept and be bound by any order or judgme nt of the United States District Court for the Southern District of F lorida, the Circuit Court for the 17th Judi cial Circuit in and for Br owar d County , Florida , and any fede ral or state court having a

ppellate jurisdiction there over” wher e Contour “a lleg es a de fault . . . or a brea ch by the Tribe of

one or more of the spec ific wa rra nties, repr esenta

tions, obli g ations or duties expressly assumed by

the Tribe unde r the ter

ms of this L ease .” 3 Case: 11-11997 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 3 of 28ex pl ic it ly con di ti on edup on ap pr ov al by the Secr et ary of th e In te rio r: “ The [ag reem en t] is all co nd it io ne d upo n app ro va l o f th is Leas e b y th e Sec ret ary of

th e In te rio r, orhe r au th or iz edrep res en ta ti ve (‘the Secr et ary’ ).” The lea se als o in co rp or at edby referen ce t he reg ul at io ns pre sc rib edby the Secr et ary pu rs ua ntto 25 C.F.R. Part 1 62
. It i s u nd is pu te d t ha t t he se reg ul at io ns , as wel l as 25 U.S.C. § 8 1, ap pl y to th e p ut at iv e le as e, ev en if t he y ha d n otbe en ex pr es sl y

in co rp or at edin to th e le as e’s te rm s. Bo th th e reg ul at io ns an d t he st atut e ex pl ic it ly con di ti on th e v al id it y of t he le as e o n t he ap pr ov al of t he Secr et ary of th e In te rio r. 25 U.S.C. § 8 1( b) (“No ag reem en t o r co nt ractwit h an In di an tri be th aten cu m be rs Ind ian l an ds fora pe rio d o f 7 o r m or e y ears sh al l b e v al idun le ss th atag reem en t o r co nt ractbe ars th e ap pr ov al of t he Secr et ary of th e In te rio r ora de si gn ee o f th e Sec ret ary. ”); 25 C.F.R. § 16 2.6 04 (a) (“ All lea se s m ad e p ur su an t t o t he reg ul at io ns in th is pa rt s ha ll be in th e fo rm

ap pr ov edby the Secr et ary an d s ub ject t o h is writ te n app ro va l.”)
. 2 Alt ho ug h t he ch ai rm anof t he Sem in ol e Trib al Co un ci l, Mi tc he ll Cy pr es s,
subm it te d t he lea se to th e Sec ret ary of th e In te rio r fo r ap pr ov al , itwas n ev er
The statutory

authority for theseregulations comes in part fr om 25 U.S.C. § 415, which 2 provides that “[a]ny

restric ted Indian lands, whe ther tribally , or individually owned, may

be lease d by the Indian owner s, with the approva l of the Secr etar y of the Interior, f

or public, relig ious, educa

tional, rec reational, residential, or business pur poses.” 25 U.S.C. § 415(a) (empha sis added). 4

Case: 11-11997 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 4 of 28ap pr ov ed . Con to urall eg es , ho wev er, t ha t t he Trib e kno win gl y m ad e fal se ora l an d writ te n a ss ert io ns th atth e le as e was va li d. Th e co m pl ai nthi gh li gh ts a le tt er d at ed Nov em be r 26 , 20 03 , fro m

th e Sem in ol e Trib e’s au th or iz edrep res en ta ti ve refe rri ng to th e le as e as ha vi ng be en “ fu ll y ex ecu te d.” Con to urals o i nc lu de d i n t he
co m pl ai nta refe ren ce t o aco nv ers at io n i ts own er h adwit h t he tri ba l re pr es en ta ti ve whe reb y Co nt ou r was ass ur ed“ th atall pape rwo rkne ed edfor th e Leas e h adbe en
subm it te d a ndap pr ov ed ,” an d t ha t t he sp a h adto be op en for bu si ne ss by May

17 , 20 04 . The t rib al rep res en ta ti ve als o a ll eg ed ly said : “ Girl , y ou are g oo d t o g o. Maz al to v. Co ng ratul at io ns .” Co nt ou r th en sp en t m or e th an $1 .5 m il li on to de si gn an d b ui ldth e sp a, whi ch op en edat t he Trib e’s ho te l o n M ay 17 , 20 04
. The de al be twee n t he pa rti es be ga n t o s ou r in 20 05 when Co nt ou r wan te d t o be gi n c ha rg in g Har d R oc k Ho te l g ue st s t o u se th e fi tn es s ce nt er atth e sp a. Bu t wha t re al ly set t he st ag e fo r th is laws ui t was a co m m en t m ad e b y

a tr ib al rep res en ta ti ve in Ju ne 20 07 th atth e “ Leas e Agr eem en t was no go od , andco ul d b e te rm in at edat a ny tim e, si nc e ap pr ov al
. . . ha d n ev er b een ob ta in edfro m th e Bu reau of I nd ian Aff

ai rs .” Co nt ou r wro te to th e Bu reau of I nd ia n Aff ai rs (“ BIA”) , an ag en cy

ho us edwit hi n t he Depa rtment o f th e In te rio r, an d d is co ve redth at al th ou gh th e Sem in ol e Trib e h adsubm it te d t he lea se , itha d n ev er b een ap pr ov ed
. In st ead , Con to urlea rn ed , th e BIA h adsen t a r ep ly lett er t o the Sem in ol e Trib e
5 Case: 11-11997 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 5 of 28da te d M ay

27 , 20 04 (te n d ay s af

te r th e sp a o pe ne d) , no ti ng a se rie s o f de fic ie nc ie s in th e le as e an d re qu es ti ng th atth e Sem in ol e Trib e co rrec t t he m an d re subm itth e le as e ap pl ic at io n fo r th e Sec ret ary’ s ap pr ov al . Alle ge dl y , th e Trib e n ev er s ha red
an y of t hi s wi th Co nt ou r. Onc e itlea rn edof the BIA’s le tt er, h owe ve r, Co nt ou r pr om pt ly adv is edth e Trib e th atCo nt ou r ag reedto th e ch an ge s re qu es te d b y th e BIA, b utth e Trib e st il l fa il edto res po ndor t o re subm itth e le as e fo r ap pr ov al
. Not wit hs ta nd in g h av in g l earn edth atth e le as e h adne ve r be en ap pr ov ed , Co nt ou r co nt in ue d t o o pe rat e it s s paat t he ho te l. Bu t Co nt ou r’s op erat io ns at t he HardRo cken de d o n M arch 17 , 20 10 , when th e Trib e’s co un se l e- m ai le d alet te r to Co nt ou r in fo rm in g C on to ur th atth e Trib e h adde ci de d t o re ta ke th e p rem is es an d to pe rm an en tl y

clo se th e sp a. By

th e n ex t d ay , th e Sem in ol e Trib e h adpa dl oc ke d th e d oo rs on Co nt ou r’s bu si ne ss an d wo ul d o nl y all ow Co nt ou r acc es s wh en
es co rte d b y

tri ba l s ecu rit y

an d fo r th e li m it edpu rp os e o f rem ov in g p ers on al pr op erty . Co nt ou r was te d n o t im e in go in g t o c ou rt. OnMarc h 1 9, 2 01 0, Co nt ou r fil edsu itag ai ns t the Sem in ol e Trib e in Flo rid a Ci rcu itCo urt fo r Bro wardCo un ty,
se ek in g e m erg en cy

de cl arat ory

an d i nju nc ti ve rel ie f. Sho rtl y th erea fte r, th e Trib e
rem ov edth e cas e to th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Fl or id a. 6

Case: 11-11997 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 6 of 28Co nt ou r th ento okth e o pp ortu ni ty to am en d i ts co m pl ai nt . In a dd it io n t o th e Trib e it se lf, C on to urad de d a s d efen da nt s t he Trib e’s Ch ai rm an , Mit ch el l Cy pr es s, u nn am edtri ba l m em be r(s ) Jo hn Doe, an d u nn am edno n- tri ba l de fen da nt (s ) Ri ch ardRo e. The Am en de d C om pl ai ntall eg edtwo fed eral cla im s
an d fi ve st at e-l aw co un ts . Cou nt s I a ndII s ou gh t d ecl arat ory an d i nju nc ti ve rel ie f ag ai ns t al l t rib al de fen da nt s u nd er t he Ind ia n C iv il Rig ht s Act , 25 U.S.C. §§ 13 01
- 02 , andth e In di an Lon g Term Leas in g Actan d i ts acco m pa nyin g re gu la ti on s, 2 5 U.S.C. § 4 15 an d 2 5 C .F.R. pt . 2, 1 62 . The remaini ng co un ts all so ug htda m ag es
un de r st at e-l aw cau se s o f act io n fo r wro ng fu l ev ic ti on , un la wfu l en try and de te nt io n, fr au d, p ro m is so ry est op pe l, an d u nju sten ric hm en t. The fed eral ch arg es were l im it edto th e tr ib al de fen da nt s. Bo th th e Sem in ol e Trib e an d, s ep arat el y , Cha irman Cy pr es s, m ov edto di sm is s fo r la ckof s ub

ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on , ass ert in g t rib al so ve rei gn im m un it y . Afte r fu ll bri efi ng , th e d is tri ctco urt d is m is se d the fed eral cla im s, an d re m an de d th e st at e-l aw cl ai m s b ackto st at e co urt, fi nd in g n o b as is for ret ai ni ng supp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 36 7. Th is ti m el y ap pe al fol lo wed
. II .

“ W e rev ie w de n ov o t he di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f a co m pl ai ntfor
so ve rei gn imm

un it y .” San de rli n v . Sem in ol e Trib e o f Fl a., 24 3 F .3d12 82 , 12 85
7 Case: 11-11997 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 7 of 28(1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) ; ac co rdFlo rid a v . Sem in ol e Trib e o f Fl a., 18 1 F .3d12 37 , 12 40
-

41 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ); F la . Parap le gi c, Ass ’n v. Mi cco su ke e Trib e o f In di an s o f Fl a, 16 6 F .3d11 26 , 11 28 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Alt ho ug h t he Supr em e Co urt h as ex pr es se d s om e d oubtab ou t t he co nt in ue d wis do m of t he tri ba l i m

m un it y do ct rin e, itis no ne th el es s cl ear t ha t “ [a]s a m at te r of fed eral law, an Ind ia n t rib e is subjec t t o s ui t o nl y wher e Co ng res s h as
au th or iz edth e su itor t he tri be ha s wai ve d i ts imm un it y .” Kio wa Trib e o f Okl a. v. Mfg . Tech s., In c., 52 3 U.S. 7 51 , 75 4 (1 99 8) ; ac co rdOkl a. Tax Co m m ’n v. Ci ti zen Ban d P ot awat om i In di an Trib e o f Okl a., 49 8 U.S. 5 05 , 50 9 (1 99 1) (“ In di an tri be s are d om es ti c d ep en de ntna ti on s t ha t ex erci se in he ren t s ov erei gn au th or ity ov er th ei r m em

be rs an d t erri to rie s. Su it s ag ai ns t In di an tri be s ar e th us ba rredby
so ve rei gn imm

un it y ab se nta cl ear wai ve r by the tri be or c on gr es si on al ab ro ga ti on .” (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) ); F urry v. Mi cco su ke e Trib e o f In di an s o f Fl a., 20 12 W L 24 78 23 2, * 2 (1 1t h C ir. J un e 2 9, 2 01 2) ; San de rli n, 2 43 F.3dat 1 28 5; Sem in ol e Trib e, 18 1 F .3dat 1 24 1; Fla . Parap le gi c, 16 6 F .3dat 1 13 0- 31
. Con to ur

off ers th ree r eas on s fo r why trib al imm un it y sh ou ldno t b ar thi s la wsu it : fi rs t, Co nt ou r cl ai m s t ha t re m ov al of t he cas e to fed eral co urt am ou nt edto a wai ve r of

th e Trib e’s so ve rei gn imm un it y ; Co nt ou r al so says th atth e In di an
8 Case: 11-11997 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 8 of 28Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act cr eat es anim pl ie d c au se of a ct io n a ga in stth e Trib e; an d fi na ll y , Co nt ou r co nt en ds th atequi tabl e p rin ci pl es sh ou ld ho ldth e Trib e to it s ex pr es s waiv er o f so ve rei gn imm un it y , eve n t ho ug h t he lea se co nt ai ni ng th atwaiv er i s pl ai nl y in va li d a s a m at te r of

law s in ce t he Secr et ary of th e In te rio r ne ve r ap pr ov ed it . W e ad dr es s ea ch arg um en t i n turn. A. The fir stan d m os t s ub st an ti al arg um en t i s t ha t t he Supr em e Co urt’s Elev en th Am en dm en t h ol di ng in Lapi de s s ho ul d b e ex te nd edin ord er t o e st ab li sh th atwhen anInd ia n t rib e v ol un ta ril y rem ov es a cas e to fed eral co urt i t t oo waiv es
so ve rei gn imm

un it y fro m su it . W e are un pe rs ua de d. InLapi de s, anem

pl oyee of th e Geo rg iast at e u ni ve rs it y syste m su edth e Uni ve rs ity

Bo ardof R eg en ts an d i nd iv idua l b oa rdm em be rs inGeor gi a st at e co urt, al le gi ng vi ol at io ns of b ot h Geo rg iato rt l aw an d fe de ral law. Lap id es , 53 5 U.S. at 61 6. By sta tu te , Geor gi a h adex pr es sl y waiv edit s i m

m un it y fro m su itfor cla im s
so un di ng in to rt a ndbro ug htin st at e co urt, b utdi d n otwaiv e imm un it y fro m act io ns bro ug htin fed eral co urt. Ga. Co de Ann . § 5 0- 21 -2 3( b) (“ The st at e wai ve s it s s ov erei gn imm

un ity on ly to t he ex te ntan d i n t he m an ne r pr ov id edin th is art ic le
an d o nl y with re sp ectto act io ns bro ug htin th e co urts of t he Sta te of Ge or gi a. The st at e d oe s n otwaiv e an y

imm un it y wit h re sp ectto act io ns bro ug htin th e co urts of
9 Case: 11-11997 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 9 of 28th e Uni te d S ta te s.”)
.

Notsu rp ris in gl y , Geor gi a th en rem ov edth e cau se to fed eral co urt b as edon th e fed eral cla im , whi ch ha d b eenbro ug htun de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3. Lap id es , 53 5 U.S. at 6 16 . By

th e ti m e th e cas e rea ch edth e Supr em e Co urt, t he sec ti on 19 83 cl ai m ha d d ro pp edou t o f th e su itbe cau se th e in di vi du al de fen da nt s h adbe en di sm is se d fr om

th e cas e o n q ua li fie d i m

m un it y gro un ds an d t he st at e o f Geo rg ia
co ul d n otbe su edform on ey da m ag es un de r se ct io n 1 98 3. Id . at 6 16 -1 7. Th us , Ju st ic e Bre y er’s o pi ni on writ in g fo r a u na ni m ou s Supr em e Co urt b eg anth e
an al y si s b y

em ph as iz in g t he na rro w qu es ti on itwas a ns weri ng : La p id es so ug ht cert io rari
. W e ag reed to de ci de whe th er “ a st at e waiv e[s ] it s Elev en th Am en dm en t imm un it y by it s affi rm at iv e li ti ga ti on co nduc t wh en itrem ov es a cas e to fed eral co urt . . . .” It ha s be co m e cl ear th at we m us t li mi t ou r an swe r to th e co nt ex t of s t a t e - l a w cl ai m s, in res pe ct to whi ch th e St at e ha s ex pl ic it ly waiv ed imm un it y fro m st at e-co urt pr oc eed in gs . Tha t is be cau se Lap id es ’ on ly fed eral cl ai m ag ai ns t th e St at e ari se s un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 , th at cl ai m se ek s on ly m o ne ta ry da m ag es , an d we ha ve he ld th at a St at e is no t a “pe rs on ” ag ai ns t who m a § 19 83 cl ai m fo r m on ey da m ag es m ig ht be as se rte d. Hen ce th is cas e do es no t pr es en t a va li d fed eral cl ai m ag ai ns t th e St at e. Nor ne ed w e a d d r e s s th e sc op e of waiv er by rem ov al in a si tu at io n whe re th e St at e’s un de rlyin g so ve rei gn imm un ity fro m su it ha s no t b een waiv edor abr og at edin st at e co urt. Id . at 6 17 -1 8 (a lt erat io ns in ori gi na l) ( em ph as es ad de d) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) ; ac co rd id . at 6 18 (“ [T]he que st io n p res en te d i s n otm oo t. We po ss es s t he leg al po wer h ere

10 Case: 11-11997 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 10 of 28to an swe r th atqu es ti on as l im it edto th e st at e-l aw co nt ex t ju stde sc rib ed .”).

The Supr em e Co urt u lt im at el y de te rm in edth atth e st at e o f Geo rg iadi d in de edwaiv e it s El ev en th Am en dm en t i m m un it y by rem ov in g t he cas e to fed eral
co urt. See id . at 6 19 -2 4. No twi th st an di ng th e ex pr es s l im it at io n o n i ts ho ld in g, th e Co urt’s s ub se qu en t re as on in g was in m an y way s qui te bro ad . The Co urt b eg an by ob se rv in g t ha t “ [i]t wo ul d s eem an om al ou s o r in co ns is te ntfora St at e b ot h (1 ) to in vo ke fed eral juri sd ic ti on , th ereb y co nt en di ng th atth e Ju di ci al po wer o f th e Uni te d S ta te s ex te nd s t o t he cas e atha nd , and(2) to cla im Elev en th Am en dm en t imm un it y , th ereb y

de nyin g t ha t t he Ju di ci al po wer o f th e Uni te d S ta te s ex te nd s t o th e cas e atha nd .” Id . at 6 19 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . The Co urt fu rth er
no te d t ha t “ a Co ns ti tu ti on th atpe rm it te d S ta te s t o fo ll ow t he ir l it ig at io n i nt eres ts by freel y ass ert in g b ot h c la im s i n t he same case co ul d g en erat e se rio us ly unf ai r
res ul ts .” Id .; ac co rdid . at 6 22 (“ Inlar ge pa rt t he rul e g ov ern in g v ol un ta ry in vo cat io ns of f

ed eral juri sd ic ti on ha s re st edup on th e p ro bl em s o f in co ns is te nc y
an d u nf ai rn es s t ha t a c on tra ry

rul e o f la w wou ldcrea te .”). The C ou rt a ls o p oi nt ed
ou t t ha t Geo rg iaha d “ vo lu nt ari ly agree d t o re m ov e th e cas e to fed eral co urt,” t ha t

“ [i]n d oi ng so , itvo lu nt ari ly inv ok edth e fed eral co urt’s jur is di ct io n,” an d th eref or e, “un le ss th ere i s s om et hi ng sp eci al ab ou t re m ov al or abo utth is cas e, th e ge ne ral leg al pri nc ip le requi rin g wai ve r ou gh t t o app ly.” Id. at62 0.
11 Case: 11-11997 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 11 of 28The Supr em e Co urt re jecte d Geo rg ia ’s cla im

th atwaiv er s ho ul d n otap pl y be cau se “ it s m ot iv e fo r rem ov al was b en ig n,” reas on in g t ha t “ [m ]oti ve s ar e di ffi cu ltto ev al ua te , whi le juri sd ic ti on al rul es sh ou ldbe cle ar” a ndth at“ [t]o a do pt th e St at e’s Elev en th Am en dm en t p os it io n wo ul d p erm itSta te s t o a ch ie ve un fai r ta ct ic al ad va nt ag es , if n otin th is cas e, in othe rs .” Id . at 6 21 . The Co urt co nc lu de d th is way : “ [W] e b el ie ve th e ru le is a cl ear o ne , eas il y ap pl ie d b y

bo th fed eral
co urts an d t he Sta te s t he m se lv es . It s ay s tha t re m ov al is a fo rm of v ol un ta ry in vo cat io n o f a fed eral co urt’s jur is di ct io n s uf fic ie ntto waiv e th e St at e’s ot he rwis e
va li d o bjec ti on to li ti ga ti on of am at te r (h ere o f st at e la w) in a fed eral forum .” Id
. at62 3- 24
. A few of ou r si st er ci rcu it s h av e tu rn edLapi de s i nt o a“ st rai gh tfo rward , eas y -to -adm in is te r ru le ” th atrem ov al by a sta te waiv es it s El ev en th Am en dm en t imm un it y , reg ard le ss of wh et he r th e st at e h as pre vi ou sl y waiv edit s i m

m un it y in st at e co urt o r whe th er t he rem ov edcla im s ar os e und er s ta te or f ed eral law. Em bu ry v. Ki ng , 36 1 F .3d56 2, 5 66 (9t h C ir. 2 00 4) ; ac co rdEst es v. Wy o. Dep ’t of Tran sp ., 30 2 F .3d12 00 , 12 06 (10 th Cir . 20 02 ); c f. Bd . of R eg en ts of t he Uni v. o f W is . Sy s. v . Pho en ix Int ’l Sof twar e, In c., 65 3 F .3d44 8, 4 61 -6 2 (7 th Cir . 20 11 ) (n ot in g t ha t Lap id es is no t l im it edto it s fa ct s an d h ol di ng th atpl ai nt iff st at e, by br in gi ng su itin fed eral co urt, wai ve d i ts imm un it y fro m rel at edco un te rcl ai m s)
. 12 Case: 11-11997 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 12 of 28Oth er ci rcu it s h av e d ecl in edto readLapi de s q ui te so bro ad ly, ta ki ng th e Supr em e

Co urt atit s wo rdan d l im it in g Lap id es to it s p ro cedur al po stur e -- i ns ta nc es in whi cha st at e rem ov es cla im s fo r whi ch itha d wai ve d i ts imm un it y inst at e co urt. See B erg em an n v . R.I. Dep’t o f Env tl . Mg m t., 6 65 F.3d33 6, 3 41 -4 2 (1 stCir
. 20 11 ); S te wartv. No rth Caro li na , 39 3 F .3d48 4, 4 90 (4t h C ir. 2 00 5) ; s ee al so W at te rs v. Wash . Met ro . Area Tran si t Au th ., 29 5 F .3d36 , 42 n.1 3 (D.C . Cir . 20 02 ) (rea ch in g s am e co nc lu si on indi ct a). St il l o th er ci rcu it s h av e p os it eda m id dl e gr ou nd , ho ld in g t ha t a s ta te ’s actof r em ov in g acas e to fed eral co urt wo ul d wai ve it s El ev en th Am en dm en t i m m un it y fro m su itbu t n otit s s ep arat e d efen se of imm un it y fro m li ab il it y as am at te r of

st at e la w. See Lom

ba rd o v . Pa., Dep’t o f Pub. Welfa re, 5 40 F.3d19 0, 1 98 -2 00 (3dCir . 20 08 ); M ey ers ex rel . Ben zi ng v. Tex as , 41 0 F .3d23 6, 2 50 , 25 2- 55 (5t h C ir. 2 00 5)
. W e n eedno t en te r in to th is co nf li ctto da y ov er h ow b es t t o re adLapi de s wit h re sp ectto a st at e’s rem ov al of acas e to fed eral co urt. Si m pl y pu t, an Ind ia n tri be ’s so ve rei gn imm

un it y is no t t he same thi ng as ast at e’s Elev en th Am en dm en t imm un it y , andLapi de s i n n o way addres se d t rib al so ve rei gn imm un it y . See Th ree Affi li at edTrib es of t he Fo rt B ert ho ldRes erv at io n v . W ol d En g’g, 4 76 U.S. 87 7, 89 0- 91 (19 86 ) (“ [B]ecau se of t he pe cu li ar ‘qu as i-s ov erei gn ’ st atus of t he Ind ia n tri be s, the Trib e’s imm

un ity is no t co ng ru en t wi th th atwhi ch th e Fed eral

13 Case: 11-11997 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 13 of 28Gov ern m en t, o r th e St at es , enjo y .” (ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . U.S. Fid . & Gua r. Co .,

30 9 U.S. 5 06 , 51 3 (1 94 0) )). In de ed , as t he Supr em e Co urt o bs erv edin Kio wa Trib e, “ th e imm

un it y po ss es se d b y

Ind ia n t rib es is no t co ex te ns iv e wit h t ha t o f th e St at es ,” an d “ tri ba l i m

m un it y is a m at te r of

fed eral law an d i s n otsubjec t t o di m in ut io n b y

th e St at es .” 52 3 U.S. at75 6. Mo reo ve r, an d e qu al ly im po rta ntin th is cal cu lu s, we m ay

no t l ig ht ly con cl ud e th atanInd ia n t rib e h as waiv edit s imm un it y fro m su it . Our p rece de nt s m ak e itab un da nt ly clearth ata waiv er o f tri ba l s ov erei gn imm

un it y can no t b e im

pl ie d o n t he ba si s o f a t rib e’s act io ns ; rat he r, itm

us t b e u ne qu iv oc al ly exp res se d. Se e San de rli n, 2 43 F.3dat 1 28 6; Sem in ol e Trib e, 18 1 F .3dat 1 24 3. An d a lt ho ug h the pre ci se is su e b efo re u s -- whe th er an Ind ia n t rib e’s rem ov al of asu itto fed eral co urt wai ve s the tri be ’s
so ve rei gn imm

un it y -- is on e o f fi rs t i m

pr es si on am on g t he cir cu it s, t he re ar e po werfu l re as on s t o t reatanInd ia n t rib e’s so ve rei gn imm un it y di ffer en tl y

fro m a st at e’s Elev en th Am en dm en t i m m un it y . Fo r st art ers , tri ba l i m

m un it y is in m an y

res pe ct s m or e an al og ou s t o fo rei gn
so ve rei gn imm

un it y th an to st at e Ele ve nt h Am en dm en t i m m un it y . The si gn ifi can ce o f th e co m

pa ris on in he res in th e fac t tha t fo rei gn so ve rei gn s d o n ot waiv e th ei r so ve rei gn imm un it y by rem ov in g acas e to fed eral co urt. See 28 U.S.C. § 1 44 1( d) (“ Any civ il act io n b ro ug htin a St at e co urt ag ai ns t a f or ei gn st at e
14 Case: 11-11997 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 14 of 28. . . m ay

be rem ov edby the for ei gn st at e to th e d is tri ctco urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s fo r th e d is tri ctan d d iv is io n e m br aci ng th e p la ce wh ere s uc h a ct io n i s p en di ng .”); Ru ss el l Co rp . v. Am . Hom e Ass ur an ce Co ., 26 4 F .3d10 40 , 10 47 n.4 (11 th Cir
. 20 01 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at28 U.S.C. § 1 44 1( d) “pr ov id es anab so lu te rig htof r em ov al to th e fed eral co urts by a fore ig n s ta te to res ol ve so ve rei gn imm un it y is su es ” (ci ti ng In r e Del taAm . Re In s. Co ., 90 0 F .2d89 0, 8 93 (6t h C ir. 1 99 0) )); see als o Ro dr ig ue z v . Trans na ve Inc ., 8 F.3 d 2 84 , 28 9 (5 th Cir . 19 93 ) (“ [R]em ov al by a fo rei gn so ve rei gn is ex pl ic it ly aut ho riz edby 28 U.S.C. 1 44 1( d) an d c le arl y can no t
co ns ti tu te waiv er.”)
. Whi le Ind ia n t rib es do no t h av e an ex pr es s s ta tu to ry rig htof r em ov al , th e si m il ari ti es be twee n fo rei gn so ve rei gn imm un it y an d t rib al imm

un ity are
no ne th el es s co ns id erab le . Ind eed , th e Supr em e Co urt h as off eredjus t s uc h a
co m pa ris on in de sc rib in g t he ori gi ns of the two do ct rin es , as wel l as th e fed eral go ve rn m en t’s ro le in sh ap in g t he ir c on to ur s: In co ns id eri ng Co ng res s’ ro le in refo rm in g tri ba l imm u n i t y, w e fin d in st ru ct iv e th e pr ob le m s of so ve rei gn imm un it y fo r fo rei gn co un t r i es . As wit h tri ba l imm

un it y , fo rei gn so ve rei gn imm un it y be ga n as a jud ic ia l do ct rin e. Ch ie f Ju st ic e Mars ha ll he ld th at Uni te d St at es co urts ha d no juri sd ic ti o n o v er an arm ed sh ip of a fo rei gn st at e, ev en whi le in an Am eri can po rt. Whi le th e ho ld in g was na rro w, “ th at op in io n cam e to be reg ard ed as ex te nd in g vi rtu al ly ab so lu te imm un it y to fo rei gn so v e r e i g n s . ” In 19 52 , th e St at e Dep art m en t is su ed wha t cam e to be kn own as th e Tate Lett er, an no un ci ng th e po l i c y of de nyin g imm un it y 15 Case: 11-11997 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 15 of 28fo r th e co m m erci al act s of a fo rei gn na ti on . Diff ic ul ti es in im

pl em en ti ng th e pr in ci pl e le d Co ng res s in 19 76 to en act th e Fo rei gn So ve rei gn Im m un it ie s Act , res ul ti ng in m or e p red ic tabl e an d p reci se rul es . Lik e fo rei gn so ve rei gn imm un it y , tri ba l imm

un it y is a m at te r of fed eral la w. Alt ho ug h th e Co urt ha s ta ke n th e le ad in dr aw i n g th e bo un ds of tri ba l imm

un it y , Co ng res s, subjec t to co ns ti tu ti on al li m it at io ns , can al te r it s l im it s t hr ou gh ex pl ic itleg is la ti on . Kio wa Trib e, 52 3 U.S. at75 9 (c it at io ns om it te d)
. Aga in , tri ba l i m

m un ity is a m at te r of

pu rel y fed eral law. Id .; s ee al so So ut h Dak ot a v . Yank to n S io ux Trib e, 52 2 U.S. 3 29 , 34 3 (1 99 8) (“ Co ng res s p os se ss es pl en ary po wer o ve r In di an affa irs , in cl ud in g t he po wer t o m od ify or el im in at e tri ba l ri gh ts .”). Mu ch li ke for ei gn so ve rei gn s, In di an tri be s h av e an in te res t i n a
un ifo rm bo dy of fed eral law i n t hi s ar ea. Cf. Lo wery v. Al a. Po wer Co ., 48 3 F .3d 11 84 , 11 97 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (n ot in g t ha t 2 8 U.S.C. § 14 41 (d ) “ was in te nd edto gi ve for ei gn st at es th e d is cret io n t o u se a fed eral forum to li ti ga te civ il act io ns in to whi chth ey

ha ve be enbro ug htforth e p ur po se of e nc ou rag in g u ni fo rm it y in th at
areaof l aw” (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). Thes e in te res ts inad jud ic at in g tri ba l i m m un it y cla im s i n afed eral forum are co ns id erab le , and , th us , we are h ard pr es se d t o ju st ify m ech an ic al ly ext en di ng th e d eci si on in Lapi de s t o t hi s wh ol ly di ffer en t co nt ex t -- whet he r an Ind ia n t rib e h as waiv edit s i m m un ity fro m su it
. In 3
Contour sugg ests that, at least in the c ommercia l context, Indian tribes should not be 3 able to lay

claim to the policy

rationale underly

ing f oreign sovere igns’ ability to preser ve their 16 Case: 11-11997 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 16 of 28fact , to do so wou ldeffe ct iv el y m ean th atanInd ia n t rib e th atha s b eensu edin st at e co urt fo r vi ol at io ns of f ed eral law m

us t ei th er fo reg o i ts imm

un it y fro m su it by rem ov in g t he cas e o r as se rt i ts imm un it y -- it se lf am at te r of

fed eral law -- on ly in st at e co urt. W e can di sc ern no so un d b as is in law o r lo gi c fo r fo rci ng anInd ia n t rib e to
m ak e th is ch oi ce. The Co urt’s h ol di ng in Lapi de s was ba se d i n n o s m al l m eas ur e
on th e o bv io us “pr ob le m s o f in co ns is te nc y an d u nf ai rn es s” th atth e p ro cedur al po stur e o f th e cas e p res en te d. 5 35 U.S. at 6 22 . If th e Supr em e Co urt h adde cl in ed to fin d awaiv er i n Lap id es , th en Geor gi a’s rem ov al of t he cas e to fed eral co urt
wou ldha ve effe ct iv el y

op erat edas a n e nd -ru n a ro un d i ts waiv er o f im m un it y in st at e co urt. In de ed , itis hardto ig no re en ti rel y th e Supr em e Co urt’s ex pr es s li m it at io n o f it s h ol di ng “ to th e co nt ex t o f st at e-l aw cl ai m s, i n re sp ectto whi ch th e St at e h as ex pl ic it ly w ai ve d i m m un it y fro m st at e-co urt p ro ceed in gs .” Id . at 6 17 . In

immunit y afte r re moval. But a cce pting this argument would require draw ing a distinction i n the tribal immunit y

doctrine be tween tr ibal g overna nce a ctivities (which, under Contour’s approa ch, presumably

implicate greater fe dera l policy conce rns) a

nd tribal commerc ial activities -- a distinction t he Supreme Court has alre ady reje cted in Kiowa

Tribe. 523 U.S. at 755 ( “Though responde nt asks us to confine immunity from suit to transac tions on reservations and to g overnme ntal activities, our pre cede nts have not dra wn these distinctions.”). Indeed, the commerc ial context is one ar ea in whic h an Indian tribe c urre ntly enjoy s even greater immunity from suit than does a f

oreign sovere ign. Cf. V erlinden B .V. v. Cent. Ba nk of Nig eria , 461 U.S. 480, 488 (1983) ( descr ibing the F oreign Sovereign Immuniti es Ac t’s exception to a fore ign sovere ign’ s immuni ty

from suit for “ actions base d upon commerc ial activities of the f oreign sovere ign c arr ied on in the United States or c ausinga dire ct ef fec t in the United States” (c iting 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2) )). 17

Case: 11-11997 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 17 of 28sh arp co nt ras t, h ere t he Sem in ol e Trib e h as inno way co ns en te d t o b e su edon an y of th e cl ai m s i n t hi s ca se in an y forum , whet he r fed eral or s ta te . Plai nl y , th e Trib e’s actof r em ov al was n otanatt em ptto ob ta in “ un fai r ta ct ic al adva nt ag e[].” Id . at 6 21 . This fur th er caut io ns ag ai ns t ex te nd in g Lap id es to ou r cas e. W e al so fin d i t d iff

ic ul t t o re co nc il e Co nt ou r’s cl ai m th atwe sh ou ldbro ad ly readLapi de s an d e xt en d i ts ho ld in g t o t rib al so ve rei gn imm un it y with t he Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on in Po ta wato m i, wh ic h h el d t ha t fi li ng a su itforin jun ct iv e rel ie f ag ai ns t a s ta te tax co m

m is si on in fed eral co urt d idno t wai ve anInd ia n trib e’s imm un it y fro m th e ta x c omm is si on ’s cou nt ercl ai m s. 4 98 U.S. at 5 09 -1 0 (“ W e up ho ldth e Co urt o f App eal s’ det erm in at io n t ha t t he Trib e d idno t wai ve it s
so ve rei gn imm

un it y m erel y by fili ng anact io n fo r in

jun ct iv e rel ie f.”). Itis cle ar th atth e In di an tri be ha d v ol un ta ril y in vo ke d t he juri sd ic ti on of t he fed eral co urts , y etdi d n otwaiv e it s s ov erei gn imm un it y ag ai ns t re la te d c ou nt ercl ai m s b y do in g
so . Not ab ly, th e Supr em e Co urt i n Lap id es ex pr es sl y di st in gu is he d P ot awat om i
an d o th er ca se s ci te d b y

th e st at e o f Geo rg ia , reco gn iz in g t ha t t rib al imm un it y im pl ic at es who ll y

di ffer en t co nc ern s t ha n a re ra is edby E le ve nt h Am en dm en t imm un it y : Tho se cas es , ho wev er, d o no t in vo lv e th e Elev en th Am en dm en t -- a sp eci fic te xt wit h a hi st ory th at fo cu se s u po n th e St at e’s so ve rei gn ty vi s- á-v is th e Fed era l G o v ern m en t. And each cas e in vo lv es sp eci al
18 Case: 11-11997 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 18 of 28c i r c u ms t a nc es no t at is su e he re, fo r ex am pl e, an effo rt by a so ve rei gn (i.e ., th e Uni te d St at es ) to se ek th e pr ot ect io n of it s own co urts (i.e ., th e fed eral co urts ), oraneffo rt t o p ro te ctanInd ia n t rib e. Lap id es , 53 5 U.S. at62 3 (e m ph as is ad de d) . The Supr em e Co urt s qu arel y
reco gn iz edth atwaiv er ru le s ap pl ic ab le to st at es m ay no t ap pl y

in th e sa m e way

to In di an tri be s. W e are , th eref

or e, rel uc ta ntto ex te ndth e Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on in Lap id es , whi ch , aft er al l, ra is edqu es ti on s ab ou t a s ta te ’s rem ov al of acla im in th e
co nt ex t o f Elev en th Am en dm en t i m m un it y , to th e su bs ta nt ia ll y di ffer en t co nt ex t pr es en te d b y

th is cas e. In s ho rt, t he Trib e’s rem ov al of t he cas e to fed eral co urt di d n ot , st an di ng alo ne , waiv e th e Trib e’s so ve rei gn imm un it y fro m su it
. B. Co nt ou r al so cla im s t ha t t he Ind ia n C iv il Rig ht s Actof 1 96 8 (“ ICRA” ), 25 U.S.C. §§ 13 01 -1 30 3, cr eat es anim pl ic itcau se of a ct io n t ha t al lo ws Co nt ou r to
su e th e Sem in ol e Trib e. Inparti cu la r, Co nt ou r sa y s t ha t i t s ho ul d b e p erm it te d t o
su e th e Trib e fo r vi ol at io ns of 2 5 U.S.C § 13 02 (a)( 5) an d (a )(8 ), whi ch pro vi de :

“No In di an tri be in ex erci si ng po wers of s el f-g ov ern m en t s ha ll
. . . ta ke an y pri va te pr op erty fora publ ic us e witho utjus t co m pe ns at io n . . . [or ] de ny to any pers on wit hi n i ts juri sd ic ti on th e equa l p ro te ct io n o f it s l aws or d ep riv e an y pe rs on of li be rty or p ro pe rty with ou t due pro ces s o f la w.” The t ro ub le with t hi s ar gu m en t i s 19 Case: 11-11997 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 19 of 28th atitis for ecl os edby Sup rem e Co urt p rece de ntest ab li sh in g tha t t he Trib e is

imm un e fro m jus t s uc h asu it . See San taCla ra Pu eb lo v. Ma rti ne z, 43 6 U.S. 4 9 (1 97 8) . San taCla ra Pu eb lo in vo lv edanin te rn al tri ba l d is pu te , in whi ch a tr ib al
m em be r an d h er d au gh te r su edth e tr ib e an d i ts Gov ern orun de r th e ICRA “ se ek in g de cl arat ory

an d i nju nc ti ve rel ie f ag ai ns t en fo rcem en t o f a t rib al ord in an ce d en y in g
m em be rs hi p i n t he tri be to ch il dr en of f em al e m em

be rs who m arry out si de th e tri be , whi le ex te nd in g m em be rs hi p t o c hi ld ren of m al e m em be rs who m arry
ou ts id e th e tr ib e.” Id . at 5 1. Th e en ti ret y of the pe rti ne nttri ba l i m m un it y ho ld in g fro m San taCla ra Pu eb lo is as f ol lo ws: It is s et tl ed th at a [co ng res si on al ] waiv er of so ve rei gn imm un it y “ ‘cann ot be im

pl ie d bu t m

us t be un equi vo cal ly ex pr es se d.’” Nothi ng on t h e f a ce of Tit le I of th e ICRA pu rp orts to subjec t tri be s t o t h e ju r i s d ic ti on of th e fed eral co urts in ci vi l act io ns fo r in jun ct iv e or de cl a r at ory rel ie f. Mo reo ve r, si nc e th e res po nd en t in a habe as co rp us act io n is th e in di vi du al cu st od ia n of the pri so ne r, th e pr ov is io ns of [2 5 U.S.C.] § 13 03 [ex p r e s s l y pr ov id in g fo r fed eral habe as co rp us ju r i s di ct io n to co nt es t th e le ga li ty of a tri ba l de te nt io n] can ha rd ly b e read as a ge n e r a l w a iv er of th e tri be ’s so ve rei gn im m un it y . In th e ab se nc e he re of an y un equi vo c a l e x p res si on of co nt rary le gi sl at iv e in te nt , we co nc lu de th at su it s ag ai ns t th e tri be un de r th e ICRA are ba rredby its so ve rei gn imm un it y fro m su it
. Id . at 5 8- 59 (em

ph as is ad de d) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . Con to ur ’s arg um en t d oe s n ot
ev en ad dr es s t he Supr em e Co urt’s s tra ig ht fo rwardtri ba l i m m un ity ho ld in g. Co nt ou r in st eadrel ie s upo n a n o pi ni on fro m th e Ten th Cir cu itho ld in g t ha t

20 Case: 11-11997 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 20 of 28th e In di an Civ il Rig ht s Actcrea te s an im pl ie d c au se of a ct io n, atlea stwher e th e fo ll owi ng na rro w cir cu m st an ces are m et : (1 ) th e in vo lv em en t o f a n on -In di an in th e su it ; (2 ) an att em

ptby the pl ai nt iff

to see k arem edy

in a tr ib al forum ; an d (3 ) th e u na va il ab il it y

of a n a de qu at e tr ib al rem edy . Dry Cree k Lo dg e, In c. v. Arap ah oe & Sh os ho ne Trib es , 62 3 F .2d68 2, 6 85 (10 th Cir . 19 80 ). Alt ho ug h t he di st ric t co urt i n t hi s ca se ex am in edwhet he r Co nt ou r m etth e fac to rs en um erat ed by the Tent h C irc ui t i n Dry Creekbe fo re d ecl in in g t o fi ndanim pl ie d c au se of act io n, i t n eedno t h av e g on e th atfar. As we s ee i t, t he Tent h C irc ui t’s fra m ewo rk is un ne ces sa ry

when tri ba l i m

m un it y is at i ss ue . The l aw is cry st al cle ar tha t t rib al imm un it y ap pl ie s u nl es s t he re h as be en co ng res si on al ab ro ga ti on or wa iv er b y th e tri be . Kio wa Trib e, 52 3 U.S. at75 4. Th e p ro bl em wit h C on to ur ’s cla im

is th at
co ng res si on al ab ro ga ti on m us t b e u ne qu iv oc al ly exp res se d andth e Supr em e Co urt ha s al read y

he ldth at“ su it s ag ai ns t t he tri be un de r th e ICRA are b arre d b y it s
so ve rei gn imm

un it y fro m su it .” San taCla ra Pu eb lo , 43 6 U.S. at59
. The v ery 4

As far as tribal immunity

and the I CRA are c oncer ned, the e ntire holdingof the 4 Supreme Court is found in the one- para g raph e x planation that congressional a brog ation of sovere ign immunity

must be unequivoca lly

expressed and that the I CRA does not ex pressly abrog ate tribe s’ immunity from suit. Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 58-59. T hat was the beg inning a

nd the end of

the re levant ana ly sis. The Supreme Court in Santa Clara Pueblo also had occ asion to addre ss whether there was a

n implied cause of

action under

the I CRA, but only beca use one of

the tribal off

icer s was sued individually and wa s not protected by the tribe’s immunit y from suit under the principles of Ex P arte Young , 209 U.S. 123 (1908). See 436 U .S. at 59. It was only

beca use of this distinction that the Supreme Court had to “de termine whe ther the ca use of a ction for de clar atory and injunctive re lief asse rted he re by responde nts, though not 21 Case: 11-11997 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 21 of 28no ti on of a n i m pl ie d c au se of a ct io n a ga in stanInd ia n t rib e p ro te ct edby sov erei gn imm un it y is at warwit h t he requi rem en t t ha t Co ng res s m us t ex pr es sl y

ab ro ga te th e tri be ’s im m un it y . The In di anCiv il Rig ht s Actpro vi de s n o b as is to subjec t t he Sem in ol e Trib e to th e in st an t s ui t. C. Co nt ou r’s fin al arg um en t i s t ha t t he Sem in ol e Trib e’s m is rep res en ta ti on s ab ou t the st atus of t he lea se -- th atth e le as e was “ fu ll y ex ecu te d,” th at“ al l pape rwo rkne ed edforth e Leas e h adbe en subm it te d andap pr ov ed ,” an d t ha t Co nt ou r’s own er was “ go odto go ” -- s ho ul d p rev en t t he Trib e fro m di sc la im in g i ts
ex pr es s wai ve r of

so ve rei gn im

m un it y co nt ai ne d i n t he co nc ed ed ly inv al idlea se ag reem en t. Co nt ou r cl ai m s t ha t “ equi tabl e es to pp el pri nc ip le s s ho ul d app ly to 2 5
expressly authorized by

the [I CRA] , is nonetheless implicit in i ts terms.” I d.; see a lso id. at 73 n.2 (White, J ., dissenting) (“B eca use the I CRA is si lent on the question, Iagree with the Court that the Act doe s not constitute a [congr essional] waiver of the Pueblo’s sovere ign immunity
. The re lief re spondents seek, how ever , is available a g ainst petitioner Lucario Padilla, the Gover nor of the Pueblo.” ). Although one of the tribal de fenda nts, Chairman Cy

press, is an individual offic er of the Tribe, the district c ourt held that the Ex Parte Youngdoctrine did not apply to Chairman Cy

press beca use he w as ac ting in his offic ial capa city and within the scope of his authority duringthe course of conduc t alleg ed in Contour’s complaint. See Ta miami Partners, Ltd. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of F la., 177 F.3d 1212, 1225 ( 11th Cir. 1999) (“[T]ribal officer s are protec ted by tribal sovere ign immunity when they

act in their of

ficial c apac ity

and within the scope of their authority ; however , they

are subject to suit under the doc trine of Ex Parte Youngwhen they act beyond their authority .”). This holdinghas not bee n challeng ed by Contour on appea l. We, there fore , have no oc casion to re visit t he issue of whether Chairman Cy

press is protec ted by

the Tribe’ s immuni ty

from suit. 22 Case: 11-11997 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 22 of 28U.S.C. § 8 1 a gr eem en ts th atrequi re ap pr ov al of c on tra ct s ‘th aten cu m be r In di an la nd s fo r a p eri odof 7 or m or e y ears ’ be cau se if t he y do no t, t he pri nc ip le s an d pu rp os es of e qu it ab le est op pe l ar e ren de redm ean in gl es s.” We rem ai n
un pe rs ua de d. Co nt ou r ha s p ro vi de d u s wi th no supp ort fo r it s cl ai m th atth e Sem in ol e Trib e is so m eh ow es to pp edfro m ass ert in g t he in va li di ty of th e le as e ag reem en t i n it s en ti ret y . Ind eed , Con to ur ’s own bri ef co nc ed es th atbe cau se “ th e Sec ret ary of In te rio r di d n otap pr ov e th e lo ng term lea se co nt ract. . . . th e wai ve r of so ve rei gn imm un it y co nt ai ne d i n t ha t l eas e is no t b in di ng .” W e are , th eref or e, un pe rs ua de d by Con to ur ’s equ it ab le est op pe l ar gu m en t, an d jo inou r si st er ci rcu it s tha t h av e ad dr es se d s im il ar ar gu m en ts in ho ld in g t ha t es to pp el can no t co m pe l en fo rcem en t of an y of aco nt ract ’s pro vi si on s wh en th e co nt ractis ren de redleg al ly inv al idby op erat io n o f fed eral law. See Uni te d S ta te s ex rel . Cit iz en Ban d P ot awat om i In di an Trib e o f Okl a. v. En te r. Mg m t. Co ns ul ta nt s, In c., 88 3 F .2d88 6, 8 90 (10 th Ci r. 19 89 ); A.K. Mg m

t. Co . v. San Man ue l Ba ndof M is si on Ind ia ns , 78 9 F .2d 78 5, 7 89 (9t h C ir. 1 98 6)
. The Nin th Cir cu it ’s dec is io n i n A.K. Man ag em en t i s i ns tru ct iv e. Thatco urt
co ns id ereda co nt ractbe twee n ano n- tri ba l p art y (“ AK”) an d an In di an tri be (“ th e Ban d” ) th at“ ga ve AK th e ex cl us iv e ri gh t t o c on st ru cta bi ng o fa ci li ty andop erat e
23 Case: 11-11997 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 23 of 28bi ng o g am es on th e Ban d’s re se rv at io n fo r twe nt y y ears .” 78 9 F .2dat 7 86 . The ag reem en t i nc lu de d p ro vi si on s o bl ig in g t he Ban d t o a ctingo odfai th an d t o t ak e al l n eces sa ry

st ep s t o e xe cu te th e ag reem en t. Id . The ag reem en t al so in cl ud ed pr ov is io ns ex pr es sl y

waiv in g t he Ban d’s s ov erei gn imm un it y as t o any acti on to
en fo rce o r in te rp retth e ag reem en t, an d i nc or po rat in g the st atut ory

an d re gu la to ry requi rem en ts th atth e co nt ractrece iv e ap pr ov al fro m th e Bu reau of I nd ia n Aff ai rs . Id . Non et he le ss , th ree d ay s af te r si gn in g t he ag reem en t, t he tri be no ti fie d AK t ha t itwou ldno t re co gn iz e th e ag reem en t i t h adjus t s ig ne d. Id . Ju stas i n t hi s ca se , it
was un di sp ut edth atth e ag reem en t was ne ve r ap pr ov edby the BIA. Id . Unl ik e th is cas e, ho wev er, t he Ban d n ev er ev en att em pt edto ob ta in BIA ap pr ov al . See i d. Afte r fi rs t ar gu in g t ha t 2 5 U.S.C. § 81 di d n otap pl y to th e ag reem en t atall ,

“ AK ass ert [ed ] th atev en if s ect io n 8 1 app li es to th e Agr eem en t,” t he Ban d was

“ no ne th el es s o bl ig at edun de r ge ne ral co nt ractpri nc ip le s t o s eekBIA ap pr ov al of th e Agr eem en t” un de r “bo th anex pr es s an d i m pl ie d dut y

of g oo d fa it h a ndfai r de al in g.” Id. at78 8. AK al so arg ue d t ha t t he Ban d c ou ldno t b e al lo wedto esc ap e li ab il it y un de r th e co nt ractth ro ug h t he Ban d’s o wn fa il ur e to see k B IA ap pr ov al
. Id . at 7 89
. The Nin th Cir cu itreject edth is li ne of a rg um en t b ecau se itco ul d n otbe sq ua redwith t he lan gu ag e o f th e st atut e:
24

Case: 11-11997 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 24 of 28Wh a te ve r th e pe rs ua si ve fo rce of th es e arg um en ts , it is do ub tfu l th a t

ge ne ral co nt ract pr in ci pl es ap pl y to an ag reem en t subjec t to 25 U.S
. C
. § 81 (1 98 2)
. Sect io n 81 ex pl ic it ly pr ov id es th ata co nt ractis “ nu ll an d vo id ” wit ho ut writ te n ap pr ov al fro m th e BIA. The refo re it is lo gi cal to co nc lu de th at an ag reem en t wit ho ut BIA ap pr ov al m us t be nu ll an d vo id in it s ent ire ty. No p artof i t m ay be en fo rcedor r el ie d upo n u nl es s and un ti l BIA ap pr ov al is gi ve n. BIA ap pr ov al is an ab so lu te pr erequi si te to th e en fo rceabi li ty of th e co nt ract . To gi ve pi ecemeal effe ct to a co nt ract as urg ed by AK, wou ld ho bb le th e st atut e. The pl ai n wor ds of sec ti on 81 si m pl y ren de r th is co nt rac t v o i d in th e ab se nc e of BIA ap pr ov al
. Si nc e it is vo id , it can no t be rel ie d up on to gi ve ris e to an y ob li ga ti on by t he Ban d, in cl ud in g an ob li ga ti on of go od fai th an d fai r de al i n g . Acco rd in gl y, we fin d th at ge ne ral co nt ract pr in ci pl es do no t im po se a du ty on t he Ban d t o s eekBIA ap pr ov al of t he Agre em en t. Id . (fo ot no te om it te d)
. The Ni nt h C irc ui t’s trib al imm un it y an al y si s was th en 5 st rai gh tfo rward . The co urt o bs erv edth at“ th e wai ve r of so ve rei gn imm

un it y is cl earl y pa rt o f th e Agr eem en t, an d i s n otop erab le ex cep t as part o f th at Agr eem en t.” Id . It co nc lu de d t ha t “ [s ]inc e th e en ti re co nt ractis in op erab le wit ho utBIA ap pr ov al , th e wai ve r is in op erab le an d, the refo re, the tri be rem ai ns imm un e fro m su it .” Id
. The Tent h C irc ui t i n P ot awat om i re ach edth e sa m e co nc lu si on , exp li ci tl y fo ll owi ng th e Nin th Cir cu it ’s app ro ach . The Ten th Cir cu itreject edth e n on -tr ib al
The Ninth Circuit was inter pretinga pre vious version of sec tion 81 that used the term 5 “null and void” to desc ribe c ontrac ts lackingSecre tarial a pproval. 25 U.S.C. § 81 (1982). Since the year 2000, the statute has pr ovided: “No a g ree ment or contra ct with an Indian tribe that encumbe rs Indian lands for a period of 7 or more y ear s shall be valid unless that agree ment or contra ct bea

rs the approval of the Sec reta ry of the I nterior or a designee of

the Secr etar

y .” 25 U.S.C. § 81(b) (empha sis added). F or purpose s of this appea l, however , we a re ha rd pre ssed to see a rele vant diffe renc e betwe en a le g ally invalid contrac t and a null and void one. 25 Case: 11-11997 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 25 of 28pa rty’ s as se rti on th atth e In di an tri be ’s “pa rti cu la rly egre gi ou s co nduc t” supp orte d

th e cl ai m “ th atth e Trib e is est op pe d fr om ass ert in g t he pro te ct io n o f se ct io n 8 1.” 88 3 F .2dat 8 90 . The co urt n ot edth at“ si m il ar cl ai m s o f es to pp el ba se d o n s im il ar ci rcu m st an ces ha ve be en co ns id eredin th e co nt ex t o f se ct io n 8 1 a ndreject ed .” Id
. (ci ti ng A.K. Mgmt., 7 89 F.2dat 7 88 -8 9)
. The reas on in g b eh in d t he se de ci si on s i s p ers ua si ve . The s tra ig ht fo rward te xtof 2 5 U.S.C. § 81 m ak es pl ai n t ha t a c on tra ctgo ve rn edby thi s s ta tu te is in va li d u nt il th e Sec ret ary ha s ap pr ov edit . 25 U.S.C. § 8 1( b) (“No ag reem en t o r
co nt ractwith a n In di antri be th aten cu m be rs Ind ia n l an ds fora pe rio d o f 7 o r m or e y ears sh al l b e v al idun le ss th atag reem en t o r co nt ractbe ars th e ap pr ov al of t he Secr et ary of

th e In te rio r ora de si gn ee o f th e Sec ret ary. ”). The pi ecemeal
en fo rcem en t o f va rio us pro vi si on s o f an in di sp ut ab ly inv al idlea se ag reem en t --
su ch as the Trib e’s waiv er o f so ve rei gn imm un it y -- wou ldsq ua rel y

co nf li ctwit h th e te xtof t he st atut e. W e ad d t ha t i f itsee m s as if t he ap pr ov al requi rem en t
em bo di edin 25 U.S.C. § 8 1 i s en ti rel y on e-s id ed , gi vi ng all th e b en efi t t o t he In di an tri be an d p la ci ng all of t he ris k o n t he no n- tri ba l p art y , th atis be cau se th e st atut e was de si gn edth atway . “ Sect io n 8 1 was en act edin18 72 ‘ to pro te ctth e In di an s fr om

im pr ov id en t an d u nc on sc io nabl e co nt ract s.’” W is . W in ne ba go Bu s. Co m m . v. Ko be rs te in , 76 2 F .2d61 3, 6 17 (7t h C ir. 1 98 5) (qu ot in g In re San bo rn , 26 Case: 11-11997 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 26 of 2814 8 U.S. 2 22 , 22 7 (1 89 3) ); s ee al so H.R. Rep . No. 1 06 -5 01 , at 1 -2 (20 00 ),

rep rin te d i n 2 00 0 U.S.C.C .A.N. 69, 6 9 (“ Sect io n 8 1 o f Tit le 25 of t he Uni te d St at es Co de , ena ct edin 18 72 , is in te nd edto pro te ctInd ia ns fro m im pr ov id en t
co nt ract s an d i s co nc ern edpri m ari ly w it h fe de ral co nt ro l o ve r co nt ract s b et ween In di an s [s ic ] tri be s o r in di vi du al Ind ia ns an d n on -In di an s.”) . Whi le th e st atut e h as be en am en de d o ve r th e y ears to reduc e fed eral co nt ro l, m os t re cen tl y in20 00 to li m itit s s co pe to lo ng -te rm co nt ract s tha t en cu m

be r In di an lan ds for

sev enor m or e y ears , th ere i s n o d is pu te th atitun am bi gu ou sl y ap pl ie s t o t he lo ng -te rm

lea se at is su e in th is cas e. The Secr et ary’ s ap pr ov al is a co nd it io n p rece de ntto th e v al id it y of a ny leas e
co ve redby 25 U.S.C. § 81 . Con to urdo es no t d is pu te th is ba si c le ga l re al it y . Howev er m is le ad in g t he all eg edco nduc t o f th e Sem in ol e Trib e m ay ha ve be en , th ere i s n o l eg al supp ort fo r Co nt ou r’s cl ai m th atequi tabl e p rin ci pl es can
so m eh ow re su rrec t an Ind ia n t rib e’s waiv er o f so ve rei gn imm un it y fro m th e gr av ey ardof aco nc ed ed ly inv al idlea se ag reem en t. Thi s cl ai m to o p ro vi de s n o ba si s fo r subjec ti ng th e Sem in ol e Trib e to su it
. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt d is m is si ng Co nt ou r’s fed eral cla im s fo r la ckof ju ris di ct io n a ndrem an di ng th e st at e-l aw cl ai m s b ackto st at e co urt.
27

Case: 11-11997 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 27 of 28AFFIRMED
.

28 Case: 11-11997 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 28 of 28