Opinion ID: 202227
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Effect of Tribal Sovereign Immunity.

Text: 32 To this point, we have determined that the State may enforce its cigarette tax scheme by executing an otherwise valid search warrant on the settlement lands. The remaining question is whether tribal sovereign immunity prohibits the State from executing such a warrant against the Tribe or from arresting tribal members participating in the operation of the smoke shop pursuant to a tribal ordinance. We believe that the resolution of this binary question is clearly adumbrated by our earlier discussion of the purpose and effect of the J-Mem and the Settlement Act. 33 At the threshold, we pause to confront a point made by our dissenting brethren. They suggest that our approach to this question disregards the subtle but important distinction between tribal sovereignty and tribal sovereign immunity announced in a decision of a panel of this court. Post at 32 (Lipez, J., with whom Torruella, J., joins, dissenting) (quoting Aroostook Band of Micmacs v. Ryan, 404 F.3d 48, 68 (1st Cir.2005)). This criticism rests on shaky ground. The Aroostook panel—with scant citation to authority— saw a distinction that is not apparent to us; it framed the distinction as being that the doctrine of tribal sovereignty contemplates that, in certain circumstances, a tribe is not subject to state laws ... at all,  whereas tribal sovereign immunity means that [a tribe] is not amenable to state judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings to enforce those laws. Aroostook, 404 F.3d at 68 (emphasis in original). In our view, both the Aroostook panel's sculpting of the distinction and its ensuing discussion of the scope of tribal sovereign immunity misread the applicable Supreme Court precedents and, thus, are incorrect. As we already have explained, the trend has been away from the idea of inherent Indian sovereignty as a bar to state jurisdiction and toward reliance on federal pre-emption, McClanahan, 411 U.S. at 172, 93 S.Ct. 1257; see Hicks, 533 U.S. at 362, 121 S.Ct. 2304, treating sovereignty instead as the source of tribal power ... to protect tribal self-government or to control internal relations through tribal regulation of activities on tribal lands, Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 564, 101 S.Ct. 1245, 67 L.Ed.2d 493 (1981); see Hicks, 533 U.S. at 358-60, 121 S.Ct. 2304. Consistent with this trend, tribal sovereign immunity is most accurately considered an incidence or subset of tribal sovereignty. See, e.g., Okla. Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe, 498 U.S. 505, 509, 111 S.Ct. 905, 112 L.Ed.2d 1112 (1991) (indicating that tribal sovereign immunity is an incidence of tribal sovereignty). Consequently, we expressly overrule Aroostook with respect to the distinction in question and proceed with our bifurcated inquiry. 34 1. Confiscation of Cigarettes. The Tribe asserts that its sovereign status as a federally recognized Indian tribe immunizes it from state court process, including search warrants related to the enforcement of the State's cigarette tax scheme. On this rationale, the State, even if it may enter the settlement lands and execute a search warrant against an individual, may not execute such a warrant against the Tribe or its property. As indicated above, see supra Part II(A), the State's most potent retort is that the combined force of the J-Mem (by waiver) and section 1708(a) (by abrogation) defeats the Tribe's claim of sovereign immunity. We find this retort dispositive. 35 An Indian tribe's sovereign immunity may be limited by either tribal conduct (i.e., waiver or consent) or congressional enactment (i.e., abrogation). Kiowa Tribe v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 754, 118 S.Ct. 1700, 140 L.Ed.2d 981 (1998); Ninigret Dev. Corp. v. Narragansett Indian Wetuomuck Hous. Auth., 207 F.3d 21, 29 (1st Cir.2000). While such actions must be clear and unequivocal in their import, see C & L Enters. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe, 532 U.S. 411, 418, 121 S.Ct. 1589, 149 L.Ed.2d 623 (2001), there is no requirement that talismanic phrases be employed. Thus, an effective limitation on tribal sovereign immunity need not use magic words. See id. at 420-21, 121 S.Ct. 1589. 36 At the expense of repastinating ground already well-ploughed, we explain why we find both waiver and abrogation here. In the J-Mem, the Tribe, for valuable consideration received—1,800 acres of coveted land—explicitly acknowledged that, with certain modest exceptions not applicable here,  all laws of the State of Rhode Island shall be in full force and effect on the settlement lands. (Emphasis supplied). This concession was an integral part of the bare-knuckled negotiations that created the settlement lands. Read in light of this unique historical context, the provision quoted above clearly and unambiguously establishes that the parties to the J-Mem intended to subjugate the Tribe's autonomy on and over the settlement lands (and, thus, its sovereign immunity) to the due enforcement of the State's civil and criminal laws. Any other interpretation of the J-Mem would defy common sense and, in the bargain, nullify the State's most important quid pro quo. Hence, there was a waiver. 37 The record also evinces an abrogation of the Tribe's sovereign immunity with respect to activities on the settlement lands. Unlike most other federal statutes touching on the complicated relationship between tribes and states, the Settlement Act codified an agreement based on the mutual consent of all parties. H.R.Rep. No. 95-1453, at 11 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1948, 1954. In order to effectuate the parties' shared intent, the Settlement Act, consistent with the J-Mem, guaranteed that the settlement lands would be subject to the civil and criminal laws and jurisdiction of the State of Rhode Island. 25 U.S.C. § 1708(a) (emphasis supplied); see Narragansett Indian Tribe, 19 F.3d at 695 & n. 8 (noting that, at all pertinent times, the Tribe and the State took pains to reaffirm section 1708(a)'s vitality). 38 We must read statutes, whenever possible, to give effect to every word and phrase. United States v. Ven-Fuel, Inc., 758 F.2d 741, 751-52 (1st Cir.1985). Moreover, we must presume that Congress acts with knowledge of relevant Supreme Court precedent. See Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller, 486 U.S. 174, 184-85, 108 S.Ct. 1704, 100 L.Ed.2d 158 (1988). At the time Congress passed the Settlement Act, the Supreme Court already had adopted the approach of permitting the exercise of state jurisdiction within Indian lands where the exercise of such jurisdiction had not been preempted by federal law. See McClanahan, 411 U.S. at 172, 93 S.Ct. 1257; Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145, 148, 93 S.Ct. 1267, 36 L.Ed.2d 114 (1973); Organized Vill. of Kake v. Egan, 369 U.S. 60, 74-75, 82 S.Ct. 562, 7 L.Ed.2d 573 (1962). Thus, section 1708(a) would be mere surplusage if, as the Tribe contends, it contemplates no more than that the State may exercise jurisdiction within the settlement lands subject to the constraints of tribal sovereign immunity. In other words, if the reference to jurisdiction in section 1708(a) is to have any meaning, it must effectuate some limitation on the Tribe's sovereign immunity. Combining this language with the historical background, we conclude that section 1708(a) largely abrogates the Tribe's sovereign immunity. 5 39 We say largely in an abundance of caution. We recognize that the Tribe may continue to possess some degree of autonomy in matters of local governance, including matters such as membership rules, inheritance rules, and the regulation of domestic relations. Narragansett Indian Tribe, 19 F.3d at 701. But that core group of sovereign functions, whatever its dimensions, is not implicated in this case. Here, the State is seeking to enforce laws binding on the Tribe's commercial transactions with outsiders, not to dictate, say, tribal membership or inheritance rules. Whatever the exact contours of the Tribe's retained sovereignty, those contours are narrow-and it is perfectly clear that trafficking in contraband cigarettes is not within them. Cf. Felix S. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 122 (1988 ed.) (noting that Indian self-government ... includes the power of an Indian tribe to adopt and operate under a form of government of the Indians' choosing, to define conditions of tribal membership, to regulate domestic relations of members, to prescribe rules of inheritance, to levy taxes and the like). 40 This result is consistent with two important principles. First, the Settlement Act, properly read, ensures that the State may demand the Tribe's compliance with state laws of general application. Second, it also ensures that the State may use its entire armamentarium of legal means for redressing noncompliance. The full force of the State's preserved criminal jurisdiction logically encompasses the enforcement of criminal laws that are binding on the Tribe's commercial transactions with outsiders. That, in turn, encompasses the authority to execute a search warrant against the Tribe for its violations of those laws on the settlement lands. We conclude, therefore, that, under the terms of the J-Mem and the Settlement Act, the Tribe is not immune from the execution of a search warrant secured as part of the State's effort to enforce the Tribe's obligation to comply with a legally applicable cigarette tax scheme. 41 Judge Torruella, in his separate dissent, calumnizes this construction of the Settlement Act, arguing that it is inconsistent with the canon of construction teaching that statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the Indians, with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit. Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 759, 766, 105 S.Ct. 2399, 85 L.Ed.2d 753 (1985). In Judge Torruella's view, section 1708(a) is such a provision. See post at 39 (Torruella, J., dissenting). But that argument rests on a flawed premise. Section 1708(a), when read in light of the J-Mem and the unique historical context surrounding its enactment, clearly abrogates the Tribe's sovereign immunity with respect to the State's enforcement activities on the settlement lands. And because there is no ambiguity in the meaning and purport of section 1708(a), this case does not implicate the hoary canon of construction relied on by the dissent. 42 The dissenters attack our reading of the full force and effect language on a different front as well. They assert that the Supreme Court has held that such language . . . does not waive or abrogate tribal sovereign immunity. Post at 33-34 (Lipez, J., with whom Torruella, J., joins, dissenting). In support of this proposition, they rely on the Supreme Court's refusal to construe language in a different federal statute (commonly referred to as Public Law 280) as an abrogation of tribal sovereign immunity. See Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reserv. v. Wold Eng'g, 476 U.S. 877, 892, 106 S.Ct. 2305, 90 L.Ed.2d 881 (1986). This reliance is mislaid: the historical context and purpose of Public Law 280 are so completely different from those of the Settlement Act that, despite some linguistic coincidences, the Court's interpretation of that law has no bearing on the issues before us. We explain briefly. 43 Public Law 280 authorizes the courts of five enumerated states to assert jurisdiction over certain criminal and civil actions that may arise on designated Indian lands. See Pub.L. No. 83-280, §§ 2, 4, 67 Stat. 588, 588-90 (1953), codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 1162 and 28 U.S.C. § 1360. The law also prescribes a procedure by which any other state can extend its adjudicatory jurisdiction to actions arising in Indian country. See 25 U.S.C. §§ 1321-1322. The criminal jurisdiction component of Public Law 280 allows a state to assume jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians in ... Indian country ... to the same extent that such State ... has jurisdiction over offenses committed elsewhere within the State and mandates that the criminal laws of such State ... shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country as they have elsewhere within the State. 18 U.S.C. § 1162(a) (emphasis supplied). The civil jurisdiction component of Public Law 280 allows state courts to assume jurisdiction over civil causes of action between Indians or to which Indians are parties which arise in ... Indian country and directs that those civil laws of such State that are of general application to private persons or private property shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country as they have elsewhere in the State. 28 U.S.C. § 1360(a) (emphasis supplied). 44 Prior to the enactment of Public Law 280, the Supreme Court had held that states had no jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed on a reservation so long as either the perpetrator or the victim was an Indian. See Williams v. United States, 327 U.S. 711, 714 & n. 10, 66 S.Ct. 778, 90 L.Ed. 962 (1946). In a similar vein, state courts historically have had no jurisdiction over civil suits against tribal members when the cause of action arose out of on-reservation activities. See, e.g., Lee, 358 U.S. at 222, 79 S.Ct. 269. For the most part, then, both types of cases were within the exclusive jurisdiction of tribal courts. See Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373, 379-83, 96 S.Ct. 2102, 48 L.Ed.2d 710 (1976). But many tribal court systems failed to provide effective public and private justice to reservation Indians. 45 In an effort to ameliorate this situation, Congress enacted Public Law 280. See id. (explaining that Congress enacted the statute to correct this failure and to redress the problem of lawlessness on certain Indian reservations and the lack of adequate Indian forums for resolving private legal disputes involving reservation Indians). Accordingly, the predominant purposes of Public Law 280 were to provide reservation Indians with access to state courts and to authorize the application of state law to disputes arising in Indian country. Id. This background clearly differentiates Public Law 280's extension of state jurisdiction over Indian lands from that contemplated by the Settlement Act. Public Law 280 neither reflected the mutual consent of all parties, H.R.Rep. No. 95-1453, at 11 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1948, 1954, nor resulted from a negotiated arrangement in which a tribe surrendered certain sovereign rights in exchange for substantial concessions from the host state. 6 46 If more were needed—and we doubt that it is—Public Law 280 was primarily intended to facilitate the extension of state adjudicatory jurisdiction over Indian country. See Bryan, 426 U.S. at 379-83, 96 S.Ct. 2102. By contrast, the purpose of the Settlement Act was to extend all sorts of jurisdiction, including state regulatory jurisdiction, over the settlement lands. Narragansett Indian Tribe, 19 F.3d at 695. Given the stark contrast between the purposes of these two statutes, comparing Public Law 280 and the Settlement Act is like comparing plums and pomegranates. It follows inexorably that the Supreme Court's determination that Public Law 280's force and effect language did not abrogate tribal sovereign immunity from civil suit is uninstructive of the meaning of the full force and effect phrase in the context of the carefully calibrated agreement between the Tribe and the State. 7 47 The Tribe takes a somewhat different path, averring that our conclusion that the J-Mem and the Settlement Act largely cancel out the Tribe's sovereign immunity is inconsistent with general principles of Indian law which, according to the Tribe, routinely vindicate claims of tribal sovereign immunity from state court process. We perceive no such inconsistency. 48 Most of the cases cited by the Tribe stand for the entirely unremarkable proposition that an Indian tribe is generally immune from civil suits brought by state governments or private individuals. See, e.g., Kiowa Tribe, 523 U.S. at 754, 118 S.Ct. 1700; Fletcher v. United States, 116 F.3d 1315, 1324 (10th Cir.1997); Tamiami Partners v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 63 F.3d 1030, 1048 (11th Cir.1995) ( Tamiami II ); Imperial Granite Co. v. Pala Band of Mission Indians, 940 F.2d 1269, 1271 (9th Cir.1991); see also TTEA v. Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo, 181 F.3d 676, 680-81 (5th Cir.1999) (holding that an Indian tribe enjoys sovereign immunity from an award of money damages only, not with respect to declaratory or injunctive remedies). However, these cases also recognize that tribal sovereign immunity may be circumscribed by waiver or abrogation. See, e.g., Kiowa Tribe, 523 U.S. at 754, 118 S.Ct. 1700; Fletcher, 116 F.3d at 1324; Tamiami II, 63 F.3d at 1038 n. 30. None of these cases arise under a statute configured in the fashion of the Settlement Act; nor do any of them address a state's power to enforce its admittedly applicable criminal laws against a noncompliant Indian tribe. Consequently, they offer no insight into the question of whether the State may execute a search warrant against the Tribe on the settlement lands as part of its enforcement of the Tribe's obligation to comply with binding state law. 49 The decision in Maynard v. Narragansett Indian Tribe, 984 F.2d 14 (1st Cir. 1993), does not require a different result. That case involved a civil suit against the Tribe for an alleged trespass on private property outside the settlement lands. Id. at 15. In upholding the district court's dismissal of the complaint against the Tribe, a panel of this court indicated that neither the J-Mem nor the Settlement Act vitiated the Tribe's sovereign immunity. Id. at 15-16. The facts of the Maynard case dictate that any holding there was necessarily limited to civil suits premised on activities occurring outside the settlement lands. That holding may or may not be correct—the case at hand does not require us to say—but to the extent that Maynard contains dictum that is susceptible to a broader reading, see, e.g., id. at 16, that dictum is flatly incorrect, and we disavow it. 8 50 In a last-ditch effort to salvage its case, the Tribe proffers a Ninth Circuit case holding that tribal sovereign immunity prohibits a state from executing a search warrant against an Indian tribe. Bishop Paiute Tribe v. County of Inyo, 291 F.3d 549, 560 (9th Cir.2002). The Tribe fails to mention that the Supreme Court subsequently vacated that decision, albeit on other grounds. See Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Cmty. of the Bishop Colony, 538 U.S. 701, 712, 123 S.Ct. 1887, 155 L.Ed.2d 933 (2003). At any rate, the decision is easily distinguished. It neither addressed a state's power to enforce its applicable criminal laws against a noncompliant Indian tribe nor involved a statute that had the teeth that Congress implanted in the Settlement Act. Consequently, the decision offers no guidance with respect to the unique relationship between the Tribe and the State in regard to activities occurring on the settlement lands. 9 51 2. Arrests. The stipulated facts do not specify the basis for the arrests of tribal members during the raid. We accept for purposes of this appeal the Tribe's contention that the persons in question were arrested because of their participation in a tribally owned enterprise (the smoke shop). Building on this contention, the Tribe maintains that its sovereign immunity shielded those individuals from arrest. The premise of this argument—that the Tribe itself enjoys immunity from the enforcement activities at issue in this case— is incorrect. See supra Part II(B)(1). Accordingly, there is no derivative immunity available to the Tribe's members. 52 We add, moreover, that even if the Tribe was entitled to the protection of sovereign immunity in this case—which it is not— that protection would not cover the tribal members involved in the operation of the smoke shop. The general rule is that tribal sovereign immunity does not protect individual members of an Indian tribe. See Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Dep't of Game, 433 U.S. 165, 171-72, 97 S.Ct. 2616, 53 L.Ed.2d 667 (1977). At its most expansive, tribal sovereign immunity may extend to tribal officers —but only when such officers are acting within the legitimate scope of their official capacity. See Tamiami Partners v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 177 F.3d 1212, 1225 & n. 16 (11th Cir.1999) ( Tamiami III ) (collecting cases); but cf. Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 59, 98 S.Ct. 1670, 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978) (holding that [a]s an officer of the [Indian tribe], petitioner ... is not protected by the tribe's immunity from suit). 53 Whatever the scope of a tribal officer's official capacity, it does not encompass activities that range beyond the authority that a tribe may bestow. See Tamiami III, 177 F.3d at 1225; Tamiami II, 63 F.3d at 1045, 1050-51. It follows from this tenet that because the Tribe is legally obligated to comply with the State's cigarette tax scheme, see supra note 3, violations of that scheme by the Tribe's officers fall outside the scope of their official capacity. Therefore, the arrests of the Tribe's officers involved in the smoke shop operation would be valid regardless of the scope of the Tribe's sovereign immunity.