T he H onor abl e St ephen P. Fr i ot , U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge fort he * W es t ern D i s tr i ctof O kl ahoma, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### F e b r u ary6,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT
P R A I R I E B A N D P O T A W A T O MI N A T IO N , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, N o. 03- 3322 v . ( D. C. No . 9 9 - CV- 4 1 3 6 - J AR) J O A N W A G N O N , Secr et aryof R evenue , St at e of K ans as , i n her o ffi c i a l c a p a c i ty ; S HEI LA WA LKE R, D i rect or of V ehicl es, S t at e of K ansas, i n h e ro ffi c i a l c a p a c i ty ; WI L L I AM SE C K , Super i nt endent , K ans as H ig h w a yP a tro l, S tate o f K a n sa s, in h i s o ffi c i a l c a p a c i ty, (D . K ansas)

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ants .

OPI NI ON ON REM AND FROM THE UNI TED S TATES S UPREM E COU RT J ohn M i chae l H al e, Speci al A s s i s t antA t t or neyG ener al , L egal Ser vi ces B ur eau, K ansas D epart m ent of R even ue, T op eka, K ansas, for D efen dan t s- A pp el l ants . D avi d Pr ager , I I I , T r i bal A t t orney , Pr ai r i e B and Pot aw at om i N at i on, M ay et t a, K ans as , forPl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee. B efor e M c CO NNELL and M c KAY , C i r cui tJ udges , and F RI OT , D i s tr i ctJ udge. *- 2-

M c KAY , C i r cui tJ udge. P lain tiff P ra irie B a n d P o taw a to m i N a tio n (th e “ N a tio n ” ), a fe d e ra lly re c o g n ize d K a n sa s In d ian trib e , o rig in a llyfiled th is a c tio n a g a in st K a n sa s s tate o fficia ls to o b tain a c o u rt o rd e r re q u irin g th a t th e S tate re c o g n ize m o to r v e h icle r egi s tr at i ons and t i t l es i s s ued byt he N at i on. T he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on i n favorof Pl ai nt i ff, aff i r m ed byt hi s courton J une 25, 2001, pr ohi bi t i ng enfor cementof the St at e mot orvehi cl e r egi s tr at i on and t i t l i ng la w s w ith re s p e c t to v e h ic le s re g is te re d a n d title d b yth e N a tio n . P r ai r i e Band of P otaw at om iIndi ans v. P i er ce , 2 5 3 F . 3 d 1 2 3 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) (“ P r ai r i e Band I” ). O n A u g u st 6 , 2 0 0 3 , fo llo w in g th e o u tli n e a n d g u id a n c e p ro v id e d b yth is c o u rt in P r ai r i e Band I, the d istri ct co u rtg ran ted P lai n ti ff ’s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm ent , perm anent l yenj oi ni ng D efe ndant s fr om fur therappl i cat i on and enfor cementof K ans as ’ m ot orvehi cl e and t i t l i ng l aw s agai ns tPl ai nt i ff a nd any p e rso n s w h o o p e ra te o r o w n a v e h icle p ro p e rlyre g iste re d a n d tit led p u rsu a n t to trib a l law . O n O c to b e r 8 , 2 0 0 3 , the d istric t co u rt d e n ied D e fe n d a n ts’ m o tio n to r econs i der , and thi s courts ubs equent l yaff i r m ed the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof Pl ai nt i ff a nd i t s i s s uance of the perm anent inju n c tio n . P r ai r i e Band P otaw at om iNat i on v. Wagnon , 4 0 2 F .3 d 1 0 1 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (“ P ra iri e B a n dII” ), vacated-- -U .S .-- -, 1 2 6 S . C t. 8 2 6 (2 0 0 5 ) ( m e m .). D efe ndant s appea l ed t o t he Supr eme C our t , w hi ch vac at ed the j udgm entSect i on 17- 10- 1 of the PB M V C not es t hat“[a ] n i ncr eas i ng num berof 1 tr i bal m ember s ar e s eeki ng t o r es i de on the R es ervat i on, and an i ncr eas i ng n u m b e r o f

m o to r v e h icle s a re b e in g u se d b yIn d ian a n d n o n -In d ian p e rso n s to ent erthe R es ervat i on t err i t oryi n or dert o engage i n gami ng and otheract i vi t i es w i th T r i bal ent erpr i s es orm ember s . ” ( A ppel l ee’ s Supp. A pp. , vol . I , at55 ( PB M V C ch. 17- 10, § 17- 10- 1( A ) ) . ) T he mot orvehi cl e r egi s tr at i on and t i t l i ng se c tio n “ is n e c e ss a ryin o rd e r fo r th e T rib e to b e a b le to c o n tro l an d re g u late [thi s ] ever - i ncr eas i ng amount of m ot orvehi cl e tr aff i c on the R es ervat i on. ” (Id. )

- 3- and r emanded forr econs i der at i on i n l i ghtof the C our t ’ s deci s i on i n Wagnon v. P r ai r i e Band P otaw at om iNat i on , 5 4 6 U . S . 9 5 , 1 2 6 S . C t. 6 7 6 (20 0 5 ) (“ P ra irie B a n dIII”) . W e r evi s i tourdeci s i on, pay i ng heed t o the Supr eme C our t ’ s caut i on r egar di ng the appl i cabl e s cope of the i nt er es t - bal anci ng t es tpr om ul gat ed i n Wh ite Mountai n Apache Tr i be v. B r acke r , 4 4 8 U . S . 1 3 6 (19 8 0 ). T he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s opi ni ons and ouropi ni on i n P ra iri e B a n dI pr ovi de a c o m p re h e n siv e h isto ryo f th e d isp u te, w h ich th e re fo re n e e d n o t b e re p e a ted in detai l here. T he rel evan tfact s fol l ow . O n M arch 16 , 19 99 , i n o rdert o ad dress the i ncr eas e i n m ot orvehi cl e tr aff i c on the r es ervat i on, the N at i on enac t ed the P rai ri e B and M otorV ehicl e C od e (“PB M V C ”) t o “im plem ent r easona ble rules , r egul at i ons , and pena l t i es es s ent i al t o m ai nt ai ni ng a s afe and effi ci ent tra n sp o rta tio n sy ste m ” o n its re se rv a tio n . (A p p e llee ’s S u p p . A p p ., v o l. I, a t 8 1 ( PB M V C ch. 17- 1, § 17- 1) . ) Pur s uantt o the PB M V C , t r i bal r egi s tr at i ons and t i t l es ar e r equi r ed foral l vehi cl es ow ned byT r i be mem ber s w ho r es i de on the re s e rv a tio n a n d fo r a ll tr ib a l g o v e rn m e n t v e h ic le s . (Id. at56 ( PB M V C ch. 17- 10, § 1 7 -1 0 -1 (B ).) T h e P B M V C re q u ire s th o se se e k in g trib a l re g istra tio n s toS e c tio n 8 -1 4 2 p ro v id e s in p e rtin e n t p a rt: 2 I ts hal l be unl aw ful foranyper s on t o comm i tanyof the fol l ow i ng a c ts a n d e x c e p t as o th e rw ise p ro v id e d , v io latio n is s u bjec t to p e n a lti e s p ro v id e d in K .S .A . 8 -1 4 9 , an d a m e n d m e n ts th e re to : F irst : T o oper at e, orforthe ow nert her eof know i ngl yt o perm i tt he o p e r a t i o n , u p o n a h i g h wa yo f a n yv e h i c l e , a s d e f

i n e d i n K. S . A. 8- 126, and amendm ent s ther et o, w hi ch i s notr egi s t er ed, orforw hi ch a ce r t i fi cat e of t i t l e has notbeen i s s ued orw hi ch does nothave att ache d t her et o and di s pl ay ed ther eon the l i cens e pl at e orpl at es assig n ed there to b ythe d ivisi o n fo r th e c u rren t r eg istrati o n y ea r, i ncl udi ng anyr egi s tr at i on deca l r equi r ed t o be affi xed t o anys uch l i cens e pl at e pur s uantt o K . S. A . 8- 134, and amendm ent s t her et o, s ubj ectt o t he exe m pt i ons al l ow ed i n K . S. A . 8- 135, 8- 198 and 8 -1 7 5 1 a , a n d a m e n d m e n ts th e re to . S ec o n d : T o d isp lay or c a u se o r p e rm it t o b e d isp layed , o r to h a v e in pos s es s i on, anyr egi s tr at i on r ece i pt , cert i fi cat e of t i t l e, r egi s tr at i on l i cens e pl at e, r egi s tr at i on deca l , acc es s i bl e parki ng pl aca r d or acc es s i bl e parki ng i dent i fi cat i on car d know i ng the s ame t o be fi ct i t i ous ort o have be en ca ncel ed, r evoked, s us pended oral t er ed. (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 4- s u rr e n d e r a n yc e rt ific a te o f title is s u e d b ya n o th e r j u ri s d ic tio n , in c lu d in g K a n s a s . (Id. a t 7 0 , P B M V C c h . 1 7 -1 0 , § 1 7 -1 0 -1 9 (A )(8 ).) T h e trib a l ce rtific a tes o f tit le are of ban kn ote qual i tyand res em ble t i t l es of o ther j uri sdi ct i on s, and the li cense p la te s c o n fo rm to th e n a tio n a l s ta n d a rd s fo r v is ib ility, d e s ig n , a n d s iz e . (Id . at 8 0 .) P rio r to th e e n a c tm e n t o f th e P B M V C , the N a tio n ’s m e m b e rs c o m p lied w ith K ans as ’ m ot orvehi cl e code , w hi ch r equi r es thatal l vehi cl es oper at i ng i n K ans as b e re g is te re d a n d title d b yth e S ta te . See K a n . S tat. A n n . § 8 -1 4 2 . N o n re sid e n ts 2( . . . cont i nued) 2 K an. St at . A nn. § 8- 142. S e c tio n 8 -1 3 8 a sta tes : 3 T he pr ovi s i ons of thi s s ect i on s hal l appl yonl yt o the nonr es i dent ow nerorow ner s of anym ot orvehi cl e cons truct ed and ope r at ed pr i m ar i l yforthe tr ans por t at i on of the dr i verort he dr i verand one or m o re n o n p a y in g p a ss e n g e rs. S u c h n o n re sid e n t o w n e rs, w h e n d u ly l i cens ed i n t he s t at e of r es i dence , ar e her ebygr ant ed the pr i vi l ege of oper at i on of anys uch vehi cl e w i thi n thi s s t at e t o the ext entt hat re c ip ro c a l p riv ileg e s a re g ra n ted to re sid e n ts o f th is s tate b yth e sta te o f re s id e n c e o f

s u c h n o n re s id e n t o w n e r. K an. St at . A nn. § 8- 138a. A s w e not ed i n P r ai r i e Band I, t h e Ka n s a s S u p r e me C our ti nt erpr et ed § 8- 138a t o r equi r e r ecogni t i on of r egi s tr at i ons and t i t l es i s s ued b yIn d ia n tr ib e s th a t r e s id e o u ts id e th e S ta te o f K a n s a s . S e e S ta te v . Wa ko le , 959 P . 2 d 8 8 2 , 8 8 5 -86 (K an . 1 9 9 8 ).

- 5- oper at i ng vehi cl es i n K ans as ar e notcons i der ed i n vi ol at i on of K ans as l aw i f they a re p ro p e rlyre g iste re d a n d tit led in th e sta te o f th e ir re sid e n c e , p ro v id e d th a t th e ir s ta te g ra n ts re c ip ro c a l r e c o g n itio n to K a n s a s ’ r e g is tr a tio n s a n d title s . See K an. St at . A nn. § 8- 138a. 3 I ti s D efe ndant s ’ pos i t i on that , i n abs ence of an i nj unct i on, dr i ver s of trib a llylice n se d v e h icle s w ill b e in v io latio n o f K a n sa s s tate law fo r fa ilu re to pr es enta pr oper l yr egi s t er ed vehi cl e. A ccor di ng t o D efe ndant s , s i nce the N at i on i s w i thi n the St at e of K ans as , the r eci pr ocal - pr i vi l eges exce pt i on of § 8- 138a does n o t ap p lyto th e N a tio n b e c a u se its m e m b e rs a re re sid e n ts o f K a n sa s. A s a re su lt o f th is po li cyd ec isi o n , p ri o r t o this l it igation an d the issu an ce o f th e p reli m inary i nj unct i on thr ee c i t at i ons and a w arni ng t i cketw er e i s s ued bySt at e l awA s of J ul y2002, ther e w er e thr ee ve hi cl es i n us e thathad bee n i s s ued 4 trib a l re g istra tio n s a n d tit les . T h e N a tio n e x p e c ts to re g iste r a n d tit le ap p rox im ately3 0 0 -40 0 v eh icl es in ac co rda n ce w ith the P B M V C if th e N ati o n ’s r egul at oryauthor i tyi s aff i r m ed.

- 6- enfor cementt o tr i bal m ember s , pur s uantt o K an St at . A nn. § 8- 142, fordr i vi ng trib a llyre g iste re d v e h icle s o ff th e re se rv a tio n . P lain tiff su b m its th a t itis nece s s aryforpr i vat el yand tr i bal l yow ned vehi cl es t o occa s i onal l yl eave the r es ervat i on notonl yfori ndi vi dual purpos es , butal s o i n the exe r ci s e of tr i bal go vernm ent functi on s. 4 B eca us e ourdeci s i on i n P ra iri e B a n dII wa s v a c a t e d i n i t s e n t i r e ty , we m u st re a d d re ss e a c h iss u e ra ise d b yD e fe n d a n ts o n a p p e a l. A s s u c c in c tlysta ted in ourpr i oropi ni on, the i s s ues on appea l ar e w hethert he di s tr i ctcourt : ( 1) abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n i s s ui ng the perm anenti nj unct i on; ( 2) err ed i n i t s rul i ng that D efe ndant s w er e notent i t l ed t o s over ei gn i m m uni ty ; and ( 3) err ed i n rul i ng that the r el i ef r eques t ed bythe N at i on ( a perm anenti nj unct i on) di d notvi ol at e the T e n th A m e n d m e n t. We r e v i e w de novo a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent , appl y i ng the s am e leg al st an d ard em p loy ed b ythe d istri ct co u rt , to d eterm ine w h ethe r th ere is a g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n ym a ter ial fa c t an d w h e th e r a p a rtyis e n tit led to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w . Zam or a v. E l i t e Logis t i cs , Inc. , 449 F. 3d 1106, 1111 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); Sac & Fox Nat i on of Mo. v. P i er ce , 2 1 3 F . 3 d 5 6 6 , 5 8 3 (10 th C ir . 2000) . T he fi r s ti s s ue on appe al i s w hethert he di s tr i ctcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on- 7-

in is s u in g th e p e rm a n e n t inju n c tio n . SE Cv. P r os Int ’ l, Inc. , 994 F. 2d 767, 769 ( 10th C i r . 1993) ( “[W ] e r evi ew the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antordeni al of a pe r m anent i nj unct i on for an abus e of di s cr et i on. ”) . A di s tr i ctcourtabus es i t s di s cr et i on w h e n it i ss u e s a n “ a rb itrar y , ca p ric io u s, w h im sic a l, or m a n ife stlyu n re a so n a b le j udgm ent . ” C ol et t iv. C udd P r es s ur e C ontr ol , 165 F. 3d 767, 777 ( 10th C i r . 1999) (i n terna l qu o tat ion o m itted). Fora partyt o obt ai n a perm anenti nj unct i on, i tm us tpr ove: “( 1) actual s ucce s s on the mer i t s ; ( 2) i r r epar abl e harm unl es s t he i nj unct i on i s i s s ued; ( 3) t he thr eat ened i nj uryoutw ei ghs the harm t hatt he i nj unct i on m aycaus e the oppos i ng p a rty ; an d (4 ) th e inju n c tio n , if iss u e d , w ill n o t ad v e rse lya ffe c t th e p u b lic i nt er es t . ” F is herv. O kla. Heal th C ar e Auth. , 3 3 5 F . 3 d 1 1 7 5 , 1 1 8 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T h is st an d ard is r em ark ab lysim il ar to the stan d ard fo r a p reli m inary i nj unct i on. T he onl ym eas ur abl e di ffe r ence betw een the tw o i s t hata perm anent injun cti o n req u ir es sh o w ing ac tual su cc ess o n the m erit s, w h ere as a p reli m inary inju n c tio n re q u ir e s s h o w in g a s u b s ta n tia l lik e lih o o d o f s u c c e s s o n th e m e ri ts . See P r ai r i e Band I, 253 F. 3d at1246 ( ci t i ng Fed. Lands LegalC ons or t i um v. Uni t ed Stat es , 1 9 5 F .3 d 1 1 9 0 , 1 1 9 4 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 )). G iv e n o u r d e ter m in a tio n in P r ai r i e Band I

thatthe N at i on w i l l s uffe ri rr epar abl e harm i f the i nj unct i on i s not i s s ued, thatthe bal ance of the harm s favor s t he Tri be, and thatt he gr ant i ng of the i nj unct i on w i l l notadver s el yaffectt he publ i c i nt er es t , i tfol l ow s t hatt he onl yr eal c o n tro v e rsy th a t th is C o u rt m u st d e c id e is w h e th e r th e d istric t co u rt a b u se d itsD e fe n d a n ts m a k e a b a ld c laim o n a p p e a l th a t th e se c o n d , third , an d fo u rth 5 p erm an en t i njun cti o n fa ctors w ere ap p li ed inco rrectl yb ythe d istri ct co u rt ( A p p e l l a n t s ’ B r . a t8 ) , b u tp r o v i d e n o a r g u m e n ti n s u p p o r to f t h i s a s s e r t i o n . We w ill n o t c ra f

t a p a rt y ’s a rg u m e n t fo r h im o n a p p e a l. See Uni t ed Stat es v. G r aham , 3 0 5 F .3 d 1 0 9 4 , 1 1 0 7 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ); P erry v. Woo dw ard , 199 F. 3d 1126, 1141 n .1 3 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ); B r ow nl ee v . LearSi egl erM gm t . Ser vs . C or

p. , 15 F. 3d 976, 9 7 7 -7 8 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ); A m . A i r l i nes v. C hr is t ens en , 9 6 7 F .2 d 4 1 0 , 4 1 5 n .8 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ); P rim a s v . C ity o f O k la . C ity , 9 5 8 F . 2 d 1 5 0 6 , 1 5 1 1 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). D efe ndant s do, how ever , m ake a m i s conce i ved El eventh A m endment 6 s o v e r e i g n i mm u n i tya r g u me n to n a p p e a l , wh i c h i s a d d r e s s e d i n d e t a i l b e l o w.

- 8- dis cret i on i n rul i ng t hat the N at i on has succeed ed o n the m eri t s. 5 P lain tiff o rig in a llya rg u e d d u rin g th e su m m a ryju d g m e n t ap p e a l th a t, pur s uantt o t he l aw of the ca s e doctr i ne, ourdeci s i on i n P r ai r i e Band I negat ed th e n e e d to re v isit ce rta in iss u e s. A c c o rd in g to P lain tiff, the se iss u e s in c lu d e d : ( 1) s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on; ( 2) s t andi ng; ( 3) pr es ence of an A r t i cl e I I I cas e or contr over s y ; and ( 4) us e of the B r acke rbal anci ng t es t . A s an i ni t i al m at t er , t he fi r s tthr ee i s s ues w er e r es ol ved byt hi s courti n favorof Pl ai nt i ff i n P r ai r i e Band I, 253 F. 3d at1239- 43, and D efe ndant s do notper s i s ti n ques t i oni ng our r es ol ut i on of thos e i s s ues . A s t o the fi nal i s s ue, Pl ai nt i ff’ s s uppl ement al br i efi ng 6 fo llo w in g re m a n d re flec ts th a t th e law o f th e c a se d o c trin e is n o lo n g e r a b le to j us t i fyus i ng B r acke r . N everthel es s , w e addr es s t hi s i s s ue more ful l yher e gi ven ourr epea t ed r el i ance on the B r acke ri nt er es tbal anci ng t es ti n ourpr evi ous d ec isi o n s, w h ich h av e b ee n ca ll ed into q u esti o n in li g h t of the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s instruction o n rem an d . A lth o u g h the law o f th e c ase d o ctri n e p rov ides that w h ere “a c our tdeci des upon a rul e of l aw , t hatdeci s i on s houl d cont i nue t o govern the- 9-

s ame i s s ues i n s ubs equents t ages i n the s ame cas e, ” A riz o n a v . C a lif o rn ia , 460 U . S. 605, 618 ( 1983) , t he rul e i s a fl exi bl e one thatal l ow s cour t s t o departfr om e rr o n e o u s p r i o rru l i n g s , a s th e u n d e r l yi n g p o l i c y o f th e ru l e i s o n e o f

e ffi c i e n c y, Maj orv. B enton , 647 F. 2d 110, 112 ( 10th C i r . 1981) , notr es tr ai ntof j udi ci al p o w e r, Mes s i ngerv. A nders on , 2 2 5 U .S . 4 3 6 , 4 4 4 (1 9 1 2 ); s ee als o Wi ls on v. Meeks , 98 F. 3d 1247, 1250 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ( ci t i ng A r iz ona , 4 6 0 U .S . a t 6 1 8 -1 9 ). T he pr es ence of s ubs equentcontr adi ct or ypr ece denti s a l egi t i m at e bas i s fornot a p p lyin g th e la w o f

th e c a s e d o c tr in e . Maj or , 6 4 7 F .2 d a t 1 1 2 ; s ee als o Wi ls on , 98 F . 3d at12 50 (l i st i ng l i m i t ed reasons j ust i fy i ng dep arture from l aw of ca se d o ctri n e, i n clud ing w h ere “c o n tr o ll ing au tho ri tyh as sin ce m ad e a co n tr ary deci s i on of the l aw appl i cabl e t o s uch i s s ues ” ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. Mo n sis v a is , 946 F. 2d 114, 117 ( 10th C i r . 1991) ( i n tur n quot i ng Whi t e v. Mur tha , 3 7 7 F .2 d 4 2 8 , 4 3 2 (5 th C ir. 1 9 6 7 ))). T h e S u p re m e C o u rt b e g a n its d e c isio n in P ra iri e B a n dIII

bycl ar i fy i ng t hat“the B r acke ri nt er es t - bal anci ng t es tappl i es o n lyw h e re ‘a S tate a ss e rts a u th o rityo v e r th e c o n d u c t o f n o n -In d ian s e n g a g in g in act i vi tyon t he r es ervat i on. ’ ” 126 S. C t . at680 ( quot i ng B r acke r , 4 4 8 U .S . a t 1 4 4 ). T he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n P ra iri e B a n dIII there fo re c o m p els o u r de p arture fr om r eappl i cat i on of the B r acke rin ter e st b a lan c in g tes t. T he conduc tof non- I ndi ans , w hetheron- oroff- r es ervat i on, i s notati s s ue h e re . N o r d o e s th is c a s e m e re ly co n c e rn th e c o n d u c t o f In d ia n s o ff-r e s e rv a tio n . T he fa ctthatm ot orvehi cl e t i t l i ng and r egi s tr at i on i s a tr adi t i onal governm entT he N i nth C i r cui t ’ s deci s i on w as w i thdr aw n att he r eques tof the part i es 7 in an ti cipa ti o n o f leg isl ati o n that w o u ld ren d er the co n tr o v ersym o o t. H o w ev er, the r eas oni ng r emai ns per s uas i ve. A t o ra l ar g u m e n t, th e p a rties sta ted th a t th e re c o rd w a s s u fficie n tly 8 d ev elop ed fo r th is co u rtto m ak e a d iscri m ination d eterm ination u n d er o u r plen ary s t andar d of r evi ew w i thoutneed t o r emand t o the di s tr i ctcourtforfur therfac tual d e v e lo p m e n t o f

th e re c o rd . (O ra l A rg . T r. M a y9 , 2 0 0 6 .)

- 10- f u n c tio n , s ee Prai r i e Band I, 2 5 3 F .3 d a t 1 2 5 0 ; s ee als o Q ueets B and of Indi ans v. Was hi ngt on , 765 F. 2d 1399, 1403 ( 9th C i r . 1985) ( “I ndi an tr i bes pos s es s the s o v e re ig n a u th o ri ty to lic e n s e a n d re g is te r t ri b a l v e h ic le s .” ), vacated as m oot , 783 F .2 d 1 5 4 (9 th C ir. 1 9 8 6 ) ; a c c o rdR e dL a ke B a n do f C h ip p e w a In d ia n s v . S ta te , 7 248 N . W . 2d 722, 725 ( M i nn. 1976) ( fi ndi ng m ot orvehi cl e r egi s tr at i on or di nance “an a ppr opr i at e exe r ci s e of gove rnm ent al author i tyves t ed i n the Tri bal C ounci l of the R ed Lake B and”) , m akes cl eart hatt he i s s ue does notconce rn the l ocat i on of anyi ndi vi dual vehi cl e orr es i dencyof anyi ndi vi dual dr i ver , butt he s over ei gn r i ghtt o m ake e qual l yenfor cea bl e and e qual l yr es pect ed r egul at i ons i n an ar ena f re e o f d is c ri m in a tio n . C

f. C a b a zo n B a n do

f Miss io n In d ia n s v . Sm ith , 388 F. 3d 6 9 1 , 6 9 9 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (find ing p rop er c o m p arison fo r asse ssing d iscri m inato ry appl i cat i on of emer gencyl i ghtbarr egul at i on w as betw een l aw enfor cement agenc i es ) . A ccor di ngl y , w e mustno l ongerconce rn our s el ves w i th the s ever i t yof the effec tof the St at e’ s r egul at i on on the N at i on’ s s over ei gn i nt er es t s , but d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e S tate ’s la w d isc rim in a tes a g a in st th e N a tio n ’s r ig h t to m ake suc h regulat i on s vi s- a-vi s ot her soverei gn s. See Mes cal er o Apache Tr i be v. 8T h e N a tio n ’s in ter e st in th is c a se is lin k e d w ith stro n g fe d e ra l in ter e sts in 9 pr om ot i ng s tr ong t r i bal economi c deve l opm ent , s el f- s uffi ci ency , and s el fg o v e rn a n c e . See , e. g. , Io w a Mu t. In s. C o . v. L a P la n te , 480 U . S. 9, 14 ( 1987) (st ati n g that S u p rem e C o u rth as “ rep ea tedlyrec o g n ized the F ed era l G o v ern m en t’ s l ongs t andi ng pol i cyof enc our agi ng tr i bal s el f- governm ent ”) . T hes e fe der al i nt er es t s ar e r efl ect ed i n var i ous A ct s of C ongr es s , E xecut i ve B r anch pol i ci es , and ju d ic ia l o p in io n s . S e e g e n e ra lly I ndi an G ami ng R egul at oryA ct , 25 U . S. C . §§ 2701- 2721 ( 2000) ; I ndi an R eor gani zat i on A ctof 1934, 25 U . S. C . §§ 461- 479 ( 2000) ; I ndi an Sel f- D et erm i nat i on and Educat i on A s s i s t ance A ctof 1975, 25 U .S .C . § 4 5 0 (2 0 0 0 ); see also Pr es i dent i al Pr ocl amat i on 7500, 66 Fed. R eg. 57641 (N o v . 1 2 , 2 0 0 1 ) (“ W e w ill p ro tec t an d h o n o r trib a l so v e re ig n tya n d h e lp to s t i m ul at e ec onom i c deve l opm enti n r es ervat i on comm uni t i es . ”) ; E xec. O r der 13175, 65 Fed. R eg. 67249 ( N ov. 6, 2000) ( “[W e] r ecogni ze[ ] t he r i ghtof I ndi an tr i bes t o s el f- governm entand s uppor t [] t r i bal s over ei gntyand se lf-d e ter m in a tio n .”); B r acke r , 448 U . S. at143 ( ther e i s “a f i r m fede r al pol i cyof p ro m o tin g trib a l se lf-su fficie n c ya n d e c o n o m ic d e v e lo p m e n t”) ; Was hi ngt on v. C o n fed e ra tedTrib e s o

f C o lville , 447 U . S. 134, 155 ( 1980) ( not i ng thatfede r al s t atut es evi dence “vary i ng degr ees [of] congr es s i onal conce rn w i th fos t er i ng trib a l se lf-g o v e rn m e n t an d e c o n o m ic d e v e lo p m e n t”) . “H e re , the trib a l in ter e sts ar e an out gr ow th of the fe der al pol i cyt ow ar d s el f- det erm i nat i on, s el f- s uffi ci ency and s el f- governm ent . ” Q ueets B and , 765 F. 2d at1407 n. 6.

- 11- Jones , 4 1 1 U . S . 1 4 5 , 1 4 8 -49 (19 7 3 ). T h e N a tio n , li k e a n yg o v e rn m e n tal e n tity , h a s a sig n ifica n t in ter e st in re g u latin g m o to r v e h icle s tra v e lin g o n its lan d , an d “ [ w ]e h a v e n o c a u se to bel i eve thatt he tr i bes have be en i m pl i ci t l ydi ves t ed of thatpow erbyvi r tue of th e ir d e p e n d e n t s ta tu s .” Q ueets B and , 765 F. 2d at1403. T he N at i on has 9 a ttem p ted to re g u late th e e ffe c ts o f in c re a se d m o to r v e h icle tra ffic o n its r es ervat i on thr ough the PB M V C and thr ough t he i s s uance of tr i bal r egi s tr at i ons and t i t l es . T he PB M V C i s a compr ehens i ve code t hatappl i es t o al l vehi cl es t hat a re d riv e n o n th e re se rv a tio n . T h e sta ted p u rp o se s o f th e P B M V C a re : (1 ) “ toT her e i s evi dence thatthe tr i bal governm entvehi cl es l eave t he 10 re se rv a tio n o n o fficia l triba l g o v e rn m e n t b u sin e ss . (A p p e llee ’s S u p p . A p p ., v o l. I , at81 ¶ 4, 82 ¶ 6. ) Fori ns t ance , t r i bal l aw enfor cementand tr i bal emer gency m ed ical serv ices v eh icl es re sp o n d to o ff-reserv ati o n tr affic a cc iden ts, tr ibal fire depart m entvehi cl es ar e us ed t o r es pond t o off- r es ervat i on fi r es , and tr i bal r oad equi pm entvehi cl es ar e us ed t o m ai nt ai n, gr ade, and r emove snow fr om offr es ervat i on r oads . ( A ppel l ant s ’ A m . A pp. , vol . I V , at990- 91. ) W e s ee no r eas on t o di ffe r ent i at e betw een thes e vehi cl es and thos e ow ned byi ndi vi dual t r i bal m ember s w ho m us tl eave the r es ervat i on t o per form es s ent i al per s onal funct i ons notcapa bl e of be i ng carr i ed outon- r es ervat i on. I n P ra iri e B a n dII, w e obs erved thatD efe ndant s ’ cont i nued enfor cement 11 o f th e S tate m o to r v e h icle a n d tit lin g law s to th e e x c lu sio n o f trib a l m o to r v e h icle re g istra tio n a n d tit lin g w o u ld re n d e r th e N a tio n ’s r e g u latio n s “ ‘e ffe c tiv e ly defunc t . ’ ” 402 F. 3d at1024 ( quot i ng A ppel l ant s ’ A m . A pp. , vol . I V , at1026 (D istric t C o u rt O p in io n A u g . 6 , 2 0 0 3 )); s ee als o Q ueets B and , 765 F. 2d at1409; (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 12- c o n tro l an d re g u late ” re se rv a tio n tra ffic; (2 ) “ to p ro v id e fo r th e o rd e rly re g istra tio n a n d lice n sin g o f v e h icle s” ; (3 ) “ to a ss ist law e n fo rc e m e n t in i den t i fy i ng the o w ners of such v ehicl es”; (4) “t o p reventfraudu l ent transfer s, th e f t, co n v e rsio n , o r o th e r w ro n g f u l tran sa c tio n s o r u se o f v e h icle s” ; (5 ) “ to p ro v id e p o sitiv e id e n tific a tio n o f v e h icle s . . . in c a se s o f e m e rg e n c y ” ; (6 ) “ to p ro v id e re v e n u e to th e N a tio n ” ; an d (7 ) “ to a llo w fo r th e o rd e rlytra n sfe r o f tit le and othercomm er ci al tr ans act i ons . ” ( A ppel l ee’ s Supp. A pp. , vol . I , at55- 56 (P B M V C C h . 1 7 -10 , § 1 7 -10 -1(A )). ) N o one di s put es the N at i on’ s author i tyt o appl ythe PB M V C on r es ervat i on l and ; the d i spute ar i ses s olel ybecau se the tr i ball yt agg ed v ehicl es m ust s om et i m es l eave the r es ervat i on and dr i ve on K ans as ’ r oads and bec aus e the 10 trib a l an d S tate m o to r v e h icle re g istra tio n a n d tit lin g re g u latio n s c a n n o t co e x ist. 11( . . . cont i nued) 11 R ed Lake Band , 248 N . W . 2d at727- 28. D efe ndant s ’ comm ent s di s par agi ng t he tr i bal governm ent al i nt er es t s ar e i nappr opr i at e, unfounded, and made i n obvi ous ig n o ra n c e o f

th e n a tu re o f

th e iss u e b e fo re th is c o u rt.

- 13- Ig n o rin g th e fa c t th a t th e N a tio n w ill b e fo rc e d to re sc in d its re g u latio n in o rd e r to av o id reg u lat ing it s m em b ers into v iolati n g S tat e law , itis ap p are n t t o this co u rt that s i m ult aneo us app l i cat i on of these tw o regulat i on s i s not possi ble. A s a pr act i cal m att er , vehi cl es cannotdi s pl aym ul t i pl e l i cens e pl at es . A tan ea r l ys t age of the pr ocee di ngs , D efe ndant s cont ended thattr i bal vehi cl es coul d bearK ans as l i cens e pl at es on t he r earof the vehi cl e and tr i bal l i cens e pl at es on the fr ontof the v e h ic le . See Prai r i e Band I, 253 F. 3d at1251 n. 6. T hi s r es ol ut i on s tr i kes the courtas di s i ngenuous and i s w hol l yuns uppor t ed bythe r ecor d. T he conf us i on s u c h a p ra c tic e w o u ld c a u s e in v e h ic le id e n tific a tio n a lo n e re n d e rs it u n w o rk a b le . N orcan a vehi cl e have m or e than one offi ci al t i t l e. D ual cert i fi cat es of tit le w o u ld stifle th e P B M V C ’s s tate d p u rp o se s o f “ p ro v id [ in g ] fo r th e o rd e rly re g istra tio n a n d lice n sin g o f v e h icle s,” “ p re v e n t[ in g ] f ra u d u len t tran sfe rs, th e f t, c o n v e rsio n , o r o th e r w ro n g f u l tran sa c tio n s,” a n d “ a llo w [ in g ] fo r th e o rd e rly tra n sfe r o f

tit le a n d o th e r c o m m e rc ial tra n sa c tio n s.” (A p p e llee ’s S u p p . A p p ., v o l. I , at55- 56 ( PB M V C ch. 17- 10, § 17- 10- 1( A ) ) . ) I n addi t i on, the PB M V C does not al l ow forconcurr entr egi s tr at i on: “Each appl i cantfora [tr i bal l yi s s ued] c e rtific a te o f

tit le s h a ll su rre n d e r to th e R e g istra r . . . a n ya n d a ll o th e r c e rtific a te of t i t l e i s s ued byanyothergovernm ent al agenc yof anys t at e. ” ( A ppel l ee’ s Supp.- 14-

A pp. , vol . I , at70 ( PB M V C ch. 17- 10, § 17- 10- 19( A ) ( 8) ) . ) I tal s o does not a p p e a r t h a t th e K a n s a s m o to r v e h ic le s ta tu te s p e rm it m u ltip le re g is tr a tio n s . See K an . A n n . S tat . § 8 -13 5 (refe rri n g to “o ri g inal ce rt ifi ca te of ti tl e” ). In o rd e r to c irc u m v e n t th e u n iq u e p ro b lem p o se d b yth e se in c o m p a tib le concurr entr egul at i ons , D efe ndant s as s er tthat , once the tr i bal l yr egi s t er ed vehi cl es l eave the r es ervat i on, K ans as can c hoos e nott o r ecogni ze thes e vehi cl es a s v a lid lyre g iste re d a n d tit led u n d e r S tate law , an d th a t to fin d o th e rw ise w o u ld “s ubj ect [] St at es t o the exe r ci s e of a tr i be’ s pow er s . ” ( A ppel l ant s ’ Supp. B r . at 1 2 - 1 3 . ) We d i s a g r e e . S u c h a n a b s o l u t e p o s i t i o n i g n o r e s th e fa c tth a tKa n s a s l a ws m u st st il l be n o n d iscri m inato ryu n d er Mescal ero . U nderK ans as l aw , r es i dent s of others t at es , t err i t or i es , orpos s es s i ons of the U ni t ed St at es , the D i s tr i ctof C ol um bi a, t he C om m onw eal th of Puer t o R i co, for ei gn countr i es , and s t at es or pr ovi nces of for ei gn countr i es ar e perm i t t ed t o dr i ve thei rvehi cl es on K ans as ro a d s w ith o u t re g iste rin g o r titl in g th e ir v e h icle s in K a n sa s s o lo n g a s th e ir vehi cl es ar e “dul yl i cens ed” i n thei row n s t at e of r es i dence and thatj ur i s di ct i on g ra n ts K a n s a s -r e g is te re d v e h ic le s re c ip ro c a l p ri v ile g e s . See K an. A nn. St at . § 8- 138a. W i th the exc ept i on of I r an and pos s i bl yC uba, “outof the uni ver s e of nonK a n sa s v e h icle s th a t ap p e a r o n K a n sa s h ig h w a y s, th e S tate re c o g n ize s a n d is w i l l i ng t o acc eptr egi s tr at i on and t i t l i ng by ” pr act i cal l yeveryj ur i s di ct i on “exc ept i n the ca s e of K ans as - bas ed I ndi an tr i bes . ” P ra iri e B a n dII, 402 F. 3d at1030 (M c C o n n e ll, J., co n c u rrin g ); ( s ee O ra l A rg . T r. M a y9 , 2 0 0 6 ). In d e e d , p u rsu a n t toI n Io w a Mu tu a l In su ra n c e C o . v. L a P la n te , 4 8 0 U . S . 9 , 1 8 n . 1 0 (19 8 7 ), 12 the Supr eme C our tnot ed: I n 1924, C ongr es s decl ar ed thatal l I ndi ans born i n the U ni t ed St at es a re U n ited S tate s c iti z e n s, se e A c t o f Ju n e 2 , 1 9 2 4 , ch . 2 3 3 , 4 3 S tat. 253, now codi fi ed at8 U . S. C . § 1401, and, t her efor e, undert he Four t eenth A m endment , I ndi ans ar e ci t i zens of the St at es i n w hi ch th e yre s id e . Ther e is no i ndi cat i on thatthis gr antof ci t iz ens hi

p w as in ten d e dto a

ffec t fed e ra l p ro tec tio n o f trib a l se lf-g o v e rn m e n t. (E m p h asis ad d ed ).

- 15- S ta te v . Wa ko le , the St at e had t o gr antr eci pr oci tyt o O kl ahoma t r i bal - r egi s t er ed vehi cl es w her e O kl ahoma r ecogni zed the tr i bal r egi s tr at i ons . 959 P. 2d at883. T he part i es s pend a gr eatdeal of t i m e on the i s s ue of r es i dencyi n r el at i on t o tr i bal m ember s . W e not e thatthe l aw l eave s thei rs t atus uncl earw her e, as h e r e , th e Na t i o n h a s e x e r c i s e d i t s s o v e r e i g n r i g h t s i n c r e a t i n g a c o n c u rr e n tl a w. 12 R egar dl es s , w e have al r eadyexpl ai ned thatbeca us e the r i ghtt o m ake mot or vehi cl e t i t l i ng and r egi s tr at i on r egul at i ons i s a tr adi t i onal governm entfunct i on, the di s cr i m i nat oryeffecti s t o be ana l y zed be tw een s over ei gns , noti ndi vi dual d ri v ers. A s a c o n seq u en ce , D efen d an ts’ arg u m en t th at th e N ati o n an d it s m em b ers a re re sid e n ts o f

K a n sa s a n d , the re fo re , ca n n o t in v o k e th e re c ip ro c itysta tu te fa lls fla t. T he s ol e r eas on offe r ed byD efe ndant s t o j us t i fyt hei rr efus al t o r ecogni ze th e N a tio n ’s re g is tr a tio n a n d titli n g la w is th a t o f p u b lic s a fe ty. See Prai r i e Band II, 4 0 2 F .3 d a t 1 0 2 4 (c iti n g O ra l A rg . T r. S e p t. 29 , 2 0 0 4 ); P r ai r i e Band I, 253D efe ndant s have r epea t edl yand vehe m ent l ypr ot es t ed thatt heyw i l l not 13 a c t a s th e N a tio n ’s d a ta e n tr yc le rk s to in p u t d a ta in to th e d a ta b a s e s y s te m . P r ai r i e Band I, 253 F. 3d at1251; ( O r al A r g. T r . M ay9, 2006) ) . H ow ever , t he N a tio n m a d e c lea r th a t itw o u ld tak e w h a tev e r ste p s n e c e ss a ryto list it s r egi s tr at i on i nform at i on on the appr opr i at e dat abas e; i tneverr eques t ed thatt he (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 16- F. 3d at1251. I ndeed, D efe ndant s conce ded attw o s epar at e or al ar gum ent s that r evenue w as notati s s ue; the s ol e conc ern w as thatof s afe tyand pr ot ect i on of a s ta te ’s p o lic e p o w e rs . ( See O r al A r g. T r . Sept . 29, 2004 & O r al A r g. T r . M ay9, 2 0 0 6 .) D e fe n d a n ts m a k e m u c h o f th e fa c t th a t th e N a tio n ’s trib a l v e h icle r egi s tr at i ons do notappea ri n the nat i onal cr i m i nal dat abas e, ther ebyendange r i ng the l i ves of l aw enfor cementper s onnel bypr event i ng them from obt ai ni ng cruci al v e h ic le in fo rm a tio n . See Prai r i e Band I, 253 F. 3d at1251 ( r ecount i ng ar gum ent s ) . J udge M cC onnel l , i n hi s w el l - r eas oned conc ur r ence i n P r ai r i e Band II, ques t i oned w hetherK ans as r efus ed t o r ecogni ze r egi s tr at i ons fr om other ju ri s d ic tio n s n o t lin k e d to th e s a m e d a ta b a s e . P ra iri e B a n dII, 402 F. 3d at1030 (M cC o n n ell , J. , co n cu rri n g ). T h e a n sw er to tha t qu esti o n is no . T h e re co rd r evea l s thatO kl ahoma t r i bal r egi s tr at i ons — r ecogni zed byK ans as — ar e not i n c l u d e d i n th e d a t a b a s e . ( Ap p e l l a n t s ’ Am . Ap p . , v o l . I V, a t8 4 9 - 5 0 , 8 6 8 - 6 9 . ) As J udge M cC onnel l s t at ed: “I f nonpart i ci pat i on i n the dat abas e i s a genui ne problem , K ansas cou l d am end i t s r eci proci tyst atute t o recog nize onl ytho se non- r es i dentr egi s tr at i ons t hatar e i ncl uded i n the dat abas e, orm eetother n o n -d is c ri m in a to ry p u b lic s a fe ty c ri te ri a .” P ra iri e B a n dII, 402 F. 3d at1030 13( . . . cont i nued) 13 St at e t ake on thi s bur den. ( A ppel l ee’ s Supp. A pp. , vol . I , at83- 84 ¶¶ 8. A - B ; O r al A rg . T r. M a y9 , 2 0 0 6 .)

- 17- ( M cC onnel l , J . , concurr i ng) . M or eover , al though s afe tyi s a l egi t i m at e conc ern, w e pr evi ous l ycomm ent ed thatD efe ndant s had “e xagger at ed” the s ever i tyof that c o n c e rn h e re . See Prai r i e Band I, 25 3 F . 3d at12 51 . K ansas r ecog nizes l i cense pl at es fr om others t at es , C anada , and M exi co, and tr i bal l yi s s ued t ags fr om other j ur i s di ct i ons , i ncl udi ng M i nnes ot a and O kl ahoma, w i thoutanyr ecor d- s uppor t ed sa fe tyc o n c e rn s. In a d d iti o n , M in n e so ta h a s s ig n e d a re c ip ro c itya g re e m e n t w ith th e N a tio n , ind ica tin g a lac k o f c o n c e rn o v e r sa fe tyo n th e p a rt o f th e M in n e so ta governm ent . ( A ppel l ant s ’ A m . A pp. , vol . I V , at982- 87. ) D efe ndant s have i ntr oduced no e vi dence i ndi cat i ng thata contr aryr es ul ti s w arr ant ed. T he fa ctthatthe Supr eme C our t , i n P ra iri e B a n dIII, found thatthe N at i on w a s n o t sim ilarlysitu a ted to o th e r so v e re ig n s in re latio n to m o to r f u e l tax a tio n is of no m om ent . Fi r s t , t hi s i s nota t ax ca s e w her e, “[w ] hen tw o s over ei gns have l egi t i m at e author i tyt o t ax the s ame t r ans act i on, exer ci s e of thatauthor i tybyone s over ei gn does notous tthe j ur i s di ct i on of the other . ” C o lville , 447 U . S. at184 n. 9 ( R ehnqui s t , J . , concurr i ng i n part , concurr i ng i n r es ul ti n par t , and di s s ent i ng in p a rt). A s w e h a v e d e taile d , the tw o re g u latio n s a t issu e h e re c a n n o t co e x ist, a n d a llo w in g K a n sa s to e ffe c tiv e lye v isc e ra te th e N a tio n ’s r e g u latio n w o u ld cl ear l yous tthe N at i on’ s j ur i s di ct i on; how ever , the N at i on’ s r egul at i on does not- 18-

ous tK ans as of j ur i s di ct i on anym or e than do the r egul at i ons of anyother s o v e re ig n . Second, w hi l e the Supr eme C our tr es t ed i t s det erm i nat i on on t he us e of the fuel t ax pr ocee ds , her e ther e i s no evi dence i n the r ecor d r egar di ng us e of t i t l i ng and r egi s tr at i on pr ocee ds t hatcoul d s erve as anypoi ntof di s t i nct i on betw een the N at i on and others over ei gns . I ndeed, bot h s i des have di s cl ai m ed the r el evanc e of r evenue t o t hi s i s s ue. M or eover , the fa ctthatthe N at i on’ s r egul at i on cannot coexi s tw i th the St at e’ s r egul at i on r ender s anyas s es s m entof the bur dens i m pos s i bl e. C ons equent l y , w e hol d thatK ans as , byr ecogni zi ng vehi cl e r egi s tr at i ons f ro m o th e r ju risd ictio n s w ith o u t co n c e rn fo r sa fe tysta n d a rd s b u t re f u sin g to recogn i ze veh i cl es r egis t ered byP l ai nti ff d ue to al l eged safet ycon cerns, i m perm i s s i bl ydi s cr i m i nat es agai ns ts i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed s over ei gns . T he l i m i t ed r egul at orypow erati s s ue i n thi s cas e r epr es ent s an undeni abl e i nci dentof tr i bal so v ere ign tythat the S tat e h as e ffec ti v elyu n d erm ined thro u g h it s d iscri m inato ry tre a tm e n t. T he nexti s s ue i s w hetherthe di s tr i ctcour terr ed i n i t s rul i ng that D efe ndant s w er e notent i t l ed t o s over ei gn i m m uni ty . T he El eventh A m endment g r a n t s s t a t e s s o v e r e i g n i mm u n i tyf r o m s u i t s b r o u g h ti n fe d e r a l c o u r tb yth e i ro wnI n B lat chf or d v. Nat i ve Vi l l . of

Noatak , 501 U . S. 775, 779 ( 1991) , t he 14 Supr eme C our ts t at ed: T he El eventh A m endmentpr ovi des as fol l ow s : “The Judi ci al pow er o f th e U n ited S tate s s h a ll n o t b e c o n stru e d to e x ten d to a n ysu it i n l aw orequi ty , comm ence d orpr os ecut ed aga i ns tone of the U ni t ed St at es byC i t i zens of anotherSt at e, orbyC i t i zens orSubj ect s of anyFor ei gn St at e. ” D es pi t e the narr ow nes s of i t s t erm s , s i nce Hans v. Louis i ana , 1 3 4 U .S . 1 (1 8 9 0 ), w e h a v e u n d e rsto o d th e E lev e n th A m endmentt o s t and nots o m uch forw hati ts ay s , butfort he p re su p p o sitio n o f

o u r c o n stitu tio n a l stru c tu re w h ich it co n firm s: th a t th e S tate s e n ter e d th e fe d e ra l sy ste m w ith th e ir so v e re ig n ty in tac t; th a t th e ju d icia l au th o rityin A rticle III is lim ited b yth is so v e re ig n ty ; an d th a t a S tate w ill th e re fo re n o t b e su bjec t to su it i n fe d e ra l co u rt u n les s it h a s c o n se n ted to su it, e ith e r e x p re ss lyo r in th e “ p la n o f

th e c o n v e n tio n .” (Intern al cit ati o n s o m itted).

- 19- ci t i zens, byci t i zens of otherst at es, byforei gn soverei gn s, and byIndi an tr i bes. 14 B lat chf or d v. Nat i ve Vi l l . of

Noatak , 5 0 1 U .S . 7 7 5 , 7 7 9 -8 0 (1 9 9 1 ). D e fe n d a n ts ar gue thatthe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s i s s uance of a pe r m anenti nj unct i on agai ns tt hem vi ol at es the El eventh A m endmentof the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on beca us e the T ri b e is e ffe c tiv e ly su in g th e s ta te . T h e S u p re m e C o u rt c a rv e d o u t an e x c e p tio n to sta te s o v e re ig n im m u n ityin Ex par t e Young , 2 0 9 U .S . 1 2 3 (1 9 0 8 ), bas ed i n parton the pr emi s e thats over ei gn i m m uni tybar s r el i ef agai ns tSt at es and thei roffi cer s i n both s t at e and feder al court s , and th a t ce rta in su its fo r d e c lar a to ryo r inju n c tiv e re lief a g a in st s tate o ffice rs m u st th e re fo re b e p e rm itt e d if th e C o n stitu tio n is to re m a in th e s u p re m e la w o f

th e la n d . A lden v. Mai ne , 5 2 7 U .S . 7 0 6 , 7 4 7 (1 9 9 9 ). D e fe n d a n ts re c o g n ize th is w e llest abli shed ex cepti on , w hich perm i t s sui t s for prospect i ve inj un ct i ve rel i ef ag ai nst“To gi ve effec t ” i s the def i ni t i on of “e nfor ce. ” W ebs t er ’ s T hi r d N ew 15 Intern ati o n al D ict ion ary7 5 1 (19 8 6 ).

- 20- s t at e off i ci al s act i ng i n vi ol at i on of fe der al l aw . St at e off i cer s s ued i n Ex p a rte Youngc a se s m u st h a v e “ so m e c o n n e c tio n ” to th e e n fo rc e m e n t o f th e a lleg e d ly defe ct i ve ac t . D efe ndant s ar gue thatbeca us e theyar e nots peci fi cal l yempow er ed t o enfor ce the s t at e s t atut e i n ques t i on, theydo nothave a s uffi ci entconnec t i on w ith th e a c t fo r w h ic h th e T ri b e is e ffe c tiv e ly su in g th e S ta te . D efe ndant s ar e notr equi r ed t o have a “s peci al connec t i on” t o the u n c o n stitu tio n a l ac t o r c o n d u c t. R a th e r, sta te o fficia ls m u st h a v e a p a rticu lar d u ty t o “en force” t he st atute i n q uest i on and a dem on strat ed w i l l i ng ness t o ex erci se th a t d u ty, Ex par t e Young , 2 0 9 U .S . at 1 5 7 , w h ich D e fe n d a n ts h a v e stip u late d to in th is c a se (A p p e llan ts’ A m . A p p ., v o l. I, a t 1 7 1 ). “T h e fa c t th a t th e sta te offi cer , byvi r tue of hi s offi ce, has s om e conne ct i on w i th the enfor cementof the act , i s the i m por t antand mat er i al fac t. . . . ” Ex par t e Young , 209 U . S. at157. D efe ndant s , al though nots peci fi cal l yempow er ed t o ens ur e compl i ance w i th the s t atut e ati s s ue, cl ear l yhave a s s i s t ed orcurr ent l yas s i s ti n gi vi ng effect 15 to th e law . D e fe n d a n t W a lk e r, as D ire c to r o f V e h icle s, m a n a g e s v e h icle r egi s tr at i ons and t i t l es and s upervi s es vehi cl e r eci pr oci ty ; D efe ndantW agnon, as the Secr et aryof R evenue , i s the St at e off i ci al

— i n connec t i on w i th D efe ndant W al ker

— w ho deci ded t o denythe val i di tyof the Tri be’ s r egi s tr at i ons ; and D e fe n d a n t S e c k , as S u p e rin ten d e n t o f th e K a n sa s H ig h w a yP a tro l, en fo rc e s tra fficW e a re sim ilarlyu n im p re ss e d w ith D e fe n d a n ts’ c irc u lar a rg u m e n t th a t § 16 8 -1 3 8 a is “ u n e n fo rc e a b le” b e c a u se th e sta tu te d o e s n o t co n tain a n ysp e c ific la n g u a g e s ta tin g h o w it is to b e e n fo rc e d . ( See A p p ell an ts’ B r. at 53 -56 . ) O bvi ous l y , § 8- 138a has been e nfor ced thr ough § 8- 142 i n thatt hr ee c i t at i ons hav e been i ssued t o tr i ball yt agg ed m otorveh i cl es. I n New York , the Supr eme C our thel d thata pr ovi s i on of the Low - L evel 17 R adi oact i ve W as t e Pol i cyA ctthatr equi r ed s t at es t o acc eptow ner s hi p of w as t e or (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 21- a n d o th e r l a w s o f

th e S ta te re la te d to h ig h w a y s , v e h ic le s , a n d d ri v e rs o f v e h ic le s . T hi s s at i s fi es the “s om e conne ct i on” r equi r ementof Ex par t e Young . W e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcour tthatD efe ndant s ’ as s er t i on thattheyar e not p rop er p arti es b ec au se th eyca n n o t cha n g e state law to rem ed ythe T ri b e’s conce rns — butcan onl yenfor ce the l aw as w r i t t en— r es t s on faul tyr eas oni ng. 16 “[T] he es s ence of an Ex par t e Younga c tio n is s e e k in g re lief a g a in st th e sta te offi ci al s w ho ar e r es pons i bl e forenfor ci ng the vi ol at i ve s t at e l aw s , notagai ns tt he sta te o fficia ls w h o d ra f ted th e v io lativ e leg isla tio n .” (A p p e llan ts’ A m . A p p ., v o l. IV , a t 1 0 1 4 (D is tr ic t C o u rt O p in io n A u g . 6 , 2 0 0 3 ).) T he fi nal i s s ue i s w hethert he di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n rul i ng thatt he r el i ef r eques t ed bythe Tri be does notvi ol at e the Tent h A m endmentof the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on. D efe ndant s cl ai m t he i nj unct i on r eques t ed byt he Tri be vi ol at es t he T enth A m endmentpur s uantt o New York v. Uni t ed Stat es , 5 0 5 U . S . 1 4 4 (19 9 2 ), and P r i ntzv. Uni t ed Stat es , 5 2 1 U . S . 8 9 8 ( 1 9 9 7 ) , b e c a u s e i ti s e ffe c t i v e l y a m and at e byC on gress t o recog nize the T ri be’s m otorveh i cl e l i censes and t i t l es. New York and P rin tz s t and fort he pr opos i t i on thatC ongr es s cannot

17 18( . . . cont i nued) 17 re g u late a c c o rd in g to c o n g re ss io n a l in stru c tio n s w a s in c o n sis ten t w ith th e T e n th A m endment . 505 U . S. at175- 77. I n P rin tz , the C our ts truck dow n a por t i on of the B r adyA ctt hatr equi r ed 18 sta te o ffice rs to im p lem e n t a fe d e ra l re g u lato ryp ro g ra m a s v io lativ e o f th e T e n th A m endment . 521 U . S. at933 ( “‘ T he Feder al G overnm entm aynotcompel t he St at es t o enac toradmi ni s t era fe der al r egul at orypr ogr am. ’ ” ( quot i ng New York v. Uni t ed Stat es , 5 0 5 U . S . 1 4 4 , 1 8 8 (19 9 2 ))) .

- 22- for ce s t at es t o enac torenfor ce feder al r egul at orypr ogr ams. H ow ever , as a rt ic u la te d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt , P rin tzand New Yorkar e ea s i l ydi s t i ngui s habl e fr om the fa ct s at h a n d , fo r h e re th e g o v e rn m e n t is n o t atte m p tin g to c o m p e l th e sta te to e n a c t o r e n fo rc e a fe d e ra l p ro g ra m . R a th e r, p lain tiff is m e re ly as ki ng the C our tt o enj oi n the defendant s fr om enfor ci ng a sta te l aw thatal l egedl yi nfr i nges on r i ght s guar ant eed t o pl ai nt i ff byfede r al l a w. (A p p ell an ts’ A m . A p p . , v o l. IV , at 10 1 6 (D istri ct C o u rtO p inion A u g . 6 , 2 0 0 3 ). )

“ [ T ] h i s i s a c a s e a b o u ts t a t e l a w i n f r i n g i n g o n r i g h t s g u a r a n t e e d b yfe d e r a l l a w, a n d th e re is n o q u e stio n th a t fe d e ra l co u rts h a v e th e p o w e r to o rd e r sta te o fficia ls t o compl yw i th fede r al l aw . ” Mi l l i e Lacs B and of C hi ppew a Indi ans v. Min n e so ta , 1 2 4 F .3 d 9 0 4 , 9 2 8 n .4 4 (8 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ), a ff’d5 2 6 U .S . 1 7 2 (1 9 9 9 ). T h e p e rm a n e n t inju n c tio n re q u e ste d b yth e T rib e d o e s n o t m a n d a te s tate part i ci pat i on i n the enfor cementof a feder al s t atut orys cheme; and, ther efor e, t he T enth A m endmenthas notbeen vi ol at ed. AFF I RM ED .