Opinion ID: 145311
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Distinction Between Sovereign Authority Over Reservation Lands And Sovereign Immunity From Suit

Text: The Counties assert that the Supreme Court's decision in Sherrill requires reversal here because the Sherrill Court ruled that the land in question is not sovereign tribal land, and it is therefore subject to taxation. The Counties interpret Sherrill to hold that the OIN cannot assert sovereign immunity to prevent a foreclosure action on such land. We think that this argument improperly conflates two distinct doctrines: tribal sovereign authority over reservation lands and tribal sovereign immunity from suit. The freedom from state taxation, in the broader context of immunity from state regulation, which is addressed in Sherrill, arises from a tribe's sovereign authority over its reservation lands. This sovereign authority was examined by the Supreme Court as early as 1832: From the commencement of our government, congress has passed acts to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indians; which treat them as nations, respect their rights, and manifest a firm purpose to afford that protection which treaties stipulate. All these acts ... manifestly consider the several Indian nations as distinct political communities, having territorial boundaries, within which their authority is exclusive.... Worcester v. State of Ga., 31 U.S. 515, 556-57, 6 Pet. 515, 8 L.Ed. 483 (1832) (Marshall, C.J.), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353, 361-62, 121 S.Ct. 2304, 150 L.Ed.2d 398 (2001) (remarking that the Indians' right to make their own laws and be governed by them does not exclude all state regulatory authority on the reservation.). The conceptual clarity of Mr. Chief Justice Marshall's view in Worcester ... has given way to more individualized treatment of particular treaties and specific federal statutes. Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145, 148, 93 S.Ct. 1267, 36 L.Ed.2d 114 (1973). But the Supreme Court has categorical[ly] maintained that [a]bsent cession of jurisdiction or other federal statutes permitting it, ... a State is without power to tax reservation lands and reservation Indians. County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Indian Nation, 502 U.S. 251, 258, 112 S.Ct. 683, 116 L.Ed.2d 687 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). This principle has been traced in later Supreme Court decisions to Worcester and other cases of its era. See, e.g., id. at 257-58, 112 S.Ct. 683; Mescalero, 411 U.S. at 148, 93 S.Ct. 1267; Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 759, 764, 105 S.Ct. 2399, 85 L.Ed.2d 753 (1985). When the Supreme Court held in Sherrill that the OIN could not rekindl[e] embers of sovereignty that long ago grew cold, 544 U.S. at 214, 125 S.Ct. 1478, the sovereignty to which it was referring was of the sort described in Worcester and its progeny. Indeed, the decision of this Court that Sherrill reversed had focused on this land-based Indian sovereignty doctrine, Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 337 F.3d at 155(internal quotation marks omitted), that had emerged from Worcester and other 19th century cases, see id. at 153-55. The Supreme Court applied this doctrine to the facts at hand in Sherrill when rejecting the OIN's prayer for relief. That doctrine is different, however, from the doctrine of tribal immunity from suit. While the tax exemption of reservation land arises from a tribe's exercise of sovereignty over such land, and is therefore closely tied to the question of whether the specific parcel at issue is Indian reservation land, Cass County, Minn. v. Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, 524 U.S. 103, 110, 118 S.Ct. 1904, 141 L.Ed.2d 90 (1998), a tribe's immunity from suit is independent of its lands. [6] See Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Tech., Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 754, 118 S.Ct. 1700, 140 L.Ed.2d 981 (1998) ([O]ur cases have sustained tribal immunity from suit without drawing a distinction based on where the tribal activities occurred.). The doctrine of tribal immunity from suit has a distinctive history in the Supreme Court. As the Court explained in Kiowa: Though the doctrine of tribal immunity [from suit] is settled law and controls this case, we note that it developed almost by accident. The doctrine is said by some of our own opinions to rest on the Court's opinion in Turner v. United States, 248 U.S. 354, 39 S.Ct. 109, 63 L.Ed. 291 (1919). Though Turner is indeed cited as authority for the immunity, examination shows it simply does not stand for that proposition. . . . . Turner's passing reference to immunity, however, did become an explicit holding that tribes had immunity from suit. We so held in [ United States v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 309 U.S. 506, 60 S.Ct. 653, 84 L.Ed. 894 (1940)], saying: These Indian Nations are exempt from suit without Congressional authorization. [ Id. ] at 512, 60 S.Ct. 653 (citing Turner, supra, at 358, 39 S.Ct. 109). As sovereigns or quasi sovereigns, the Indian Nations enjoyed immunity from judicial attack absent consent to be sued. Later cases, albeit with little analysis, reiterated the doctrine. The doctrine of tribal immunity came under attack a few years ago in [ Okla. Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band] Potawatomi [Indian Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505, 111 S.Ct. 905, 112 L.Ed.2d 1112 (1991)].... We retained the doctrine, however, on the theory that Congress had failed to abrogate it.... [There are] considerations [that] might suggest a need to abrogate tribal immunity, at least as an overarching rule. Respondent does not ask us to repudiate the principle outright, but suggests instead that we confine it to reservations or to noncommercial activities. We decline to draw this distinction in this case, as we defer to the role Congress may wish to exercise in this important judgment. Congress has acted against the background of our decisions. It has restricted tribal immunity from suit in limited circumstances. And in other statutes it has declared an intention not to alter it. . . . Congress has occasionally authorized limited classes of suits against Indian tribes and has always been at liberty to dispense with such tribal immunity or to limit it. Potawatomi, supra, at 510, 111 S.Ct. 905. It has not yet done so. 523 U.S. at 756-59, 118 S.Ct. 1700 (citations omitted). The Kiowa Court highlighted the separate and independent natures of the doctrines of tribal immunity from taxation and other powers of the state, and tribal immunity from suit that controls the case at bar: We have recognized that a State may have authority to tax or regulate tribal activities occurring within the State but outside Indian country. To say substantive state laws apply to off-reservation conduct, however, is not to say that a tribe no longer enjoys immunity from suit. In Potawatomi, for example, we reaffirmed that while Oklahoma may tax cigarette sales by a Tribe's store to nonmembers, the Tribe enjoys immunity from a suit to collect unpaid state taxes. There is a difference between the right to demand compliance with state laws and the means available to enforce them. Id. at 755, 118 S.Ct. 1700. (citations omitted). While the doctrine of tribal sovereign authority over land has undergone considerable evolution [in the Supreme Court] in response to changed circumstances, McClanahan v. State Tax Comm'n of Ariz., 411 U.S. 164, 171, 93 S.Ct. 1257, 36 L.Ed.2d 129 (1973), the doctrine of tribal immunity from suit has not. The Kiowa Court indicated in the portion of the opinion set forth above that it looks to Congress for any such change. In light of this history, we do not read Sherrill as implicitly abrogating the OIN's immunity from suit. No such statement of abrogation was made by the Sherrill Court, nor does the opinion call into question the Kiowa Court's approach, that any such abrogation should be left to Congress. Sherrill dealt with the right to demand compliance with state laws. Kiowa, 523 U.S. at 755, 118 S.Ct. 1700. It did not address the means available to enforce those laws. Id.