Source: https://www.modrall.com/2016/08/30/recent-cases-confirm-sovereign-immunity/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:53:59+00:00

Document:
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the New Mexico Supreme Court recently issued opinions which reject arguments to evade the defense of sovereign immunity.
Ninth Circuit: A claim against a sovereign entity seeking non-monetary relief is barred by sovereign immunity.
In filing suit and invoking a court’s jurisdiction, a sovereign entity waives immunity for such recoupment claims. The Ninth Circuit held that a claim seeking non-monetary relief, here an injunction, does not meet the recoupment test. Consequently, Washington’s cross-request for an injunction requiring the United States to correct its barrier culverts was barred by sovereign immunity.9 This holding might be ameliorated by a third party suit against federal officials for injunctive relief under the Ex party Young10 doctrine.
While the Ninth Circuit’s holding does not apply to Tribal Nations, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, from which the Ninth Circuit adopted its “recoupment” criteria, has done so.11 Therefore, either the Ninth or Tenth Circuits could extend the holding of United States v. Washington to Tribal Nations to conclude that a recoupment claim that does not seek monetary relief is barred by the Tribe’s sovereign immunity. Given that tribal officials, like federal officials, may also be sued for injunctive relief when acting contrary to law,12 seeking injunctive relief against one or more tribal officials should be borne in mind, instead of seeking such relief against a Tribe.
New Mexico: Tribal sovereign immunity bars suit seeking to confirm access to private property.
In the second case, Hamaatsa, Inc. v. Pueblo of San Felipe,13 the New Mexico Supreme Court rejected several theories advanced by the plaintiff, a non-profit located in a rural area that sought to confirm access to its property over a road that had been transferred to the Pueblo of San Felipe, to evade the sovereign immunity defense raised by the Pueblo.
According to the allegations described in the New Mexico Supreme Court’s opinion, since 1906, Hamaatsa accessed its land via a road crossing land owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In 2001, the BLM transferred the land to the Pueblo, subject to an easement for the road. In 2002, the BLM transferred its interest in the easement to the Pueblo. In 2009, the Pueblo informed Hamaatsa that it could no longer use the road to access its property. Hamaatsa sued, and the Pueblo moved to dismiss based on sovereign immunity.14 The state district court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that that the action was an in rem proceeding not barred by sovereign immunity and, in a split decision, the New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed, albeit on different grounds. Specifically, the court of appeals’ majority reasoned that the use of the road did not threaten or otherwise affect the Pueblo’s sovereignty and that equitable considerations militated against application of sovereign immunity. The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed.
The New Mexico court’s rejection of equitable interests has analogues in federal cases. This term, in Nebraska v. Parker,23 the United States Supreme Court rejected equitable considerations in determining whether the Omaha Tribe’s Nebraska reservation was diminished by an 1882 statute. Finding an absence of the required clear congressional intent to diminish a reservation in the 1882 Act that provided for the survey, sale, and allotment of the reservation lands, the Court declined to consider “justifiable expectations” of non-Indians living on the land with respect to continued reservation status, though, in a closing paragraph, it suggested its decision in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y.24 might be applied to bar enforcement of the tribal rights at issue in the case.25 And, a few years ago, in Carcieri v. Salazar,26 the United States Supreme Court held that an unambiguous statute precluded the Department of the Interior (DOI) from taking land into trust for any Tribal Nations that was not recognized and under federal jurisdiction in 1934, when the relevant congressional act was passed. This disrupted the practice of the DOI, which had taken into trust lands for Tribes recognized after 1934.
Both the Ninth Circuit and the New Mexico high court confirmed the importance of sovereign immunity, the latter relying, in part, on the United States Supreme Court’s recent Bay Mills decision. Both cases give narrow scope to exception to the immunity defense. Hamaatsa reflects what could be a trend building upon Carcieri and extended in Parker to decline to rely upon expectations or equities in interpreting statutes in light of clear statutes or established case law. However, expectations or equities may have a role with respect to remedies. For instance, in Parker the Supreme Court indicated that expectations may play a role in determining whether certain relief is time-barred.
1. No. 13-35474, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11709 (9th Cir. June 27, 2016) (“Washington Slip op.”).
2. United States v. State of Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974). The decision is referred to as the “Boldt decision” because it was authored by Judge George H. Boldt.
3. The treaties at issue are commonly referred to as “Stevens Treaties,” after the then-Governor of the Washington Territory and Superintendent of Indian Affairs, who entered into treaties with the Pacific Northwest Tribes during 1854-1855.
4. Washington Slip op. at 26-31.
7. Berrey v. Asarco Inc., 439 F.3d 636, 645 (10th Cir. 2006).
8. Washington Slip op. at 38 (quoting Berrey, 439 F.3d at 645).
10. In Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), the Supreme Court held that suits alleging violation of federal law for prospective injunctive relief may proceed against state officials notwithstanding state immunity from suit. Ex parte Young has been extended to apply to tribal officers as well. Verizon Md. Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 535 U.S. 635, 645 (2002).
11. See, e.g., Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. Andrus, 687 F.2d 1324, 1344 (10th Cir. 1982).
12. See, e.g., Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., ___. U.S. ___, ___, 134 S. Ct. 2024, 2035 (2014).
13. No. S-1-SC-34287, 2016 N.M. LEXIS 148 (June 16, 2016) (“Haamatsa Slip Op.”).
17. Michigan, ___ U.S. at ___, 134 S. Ct. at 2035.
18. Haamatsa Slip op. at 19-21.
20. 209 U.S. 123 (1908).
21. Hamaatsa Slip op. at 14-15.
23. Nebraska v. Parker, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. ___ (March 22, 2016).
24. 544 U.S. 197 (2005).
25. Hamaatsa Slip op. at 12.
26. 555 U.S. 287 (2009).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.