Court Opinion

ID: 9549903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:26:17.678001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:02.862403
License: Public Domain

KAUGER, Vice Chief Justice
with whom SUMMERS, Justice, joins dissenting:
I dissent from the majority opinion. It directly contradicts the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit’s recent decision in Sac and Fox Nation v. Hanson, 47 F.3d 1061, 1065 (10th Cir.1995) which holds that a tribe’s sovereign immunity cannot be inferred from the tribe’s engagement in commercial activity; and that without an express waiver of sovereign immunity, a tribe is immune from state court — even if the commercial activity is conducted by a commission or a committee and occurs off of the tribe’s reservation.1
*302The Sae and Fox Nation created the Sac and Fox Industrial Development Commission which was made up of a five-member board of directors. When the Commission defaulted on a contract with the United States Army, several of the Commission’s former employees sued the board of directors in state court seeking back pay. The board asserted sovereign immunity from the state court proceedings. Here, the Kiowa, Comanche and Apache tribes formed an Inter-tribal Land Use Committee which consisted of three members from each tribe. This tripartite commission is virtually identical to the Sac and Fox Industrial Development Commission created by the Sae and Fox Nation.
I would overrule Hoover v. Kiowa Tribe, 909 P.2d 59 (Okla.1995) and follow the teaching of Sac and Fox Nation v. Hanson, 47 F.3d 1061, 1065 (10th Cir.1995). A contract between a tribal enterprise engaged in commercial activity outside Indian country and a non-Indian may not be enforced in state court without an express waiver of the tribe’s sovereign immunity.

. Judge Tacha, writing for the majority of the Court in Sac and Fox Nation v. Hanson, 47 F.3d 1061, 1065 (10th Cir.1995) said that:
“ ‘Indian tribes have long been recognized as possessing the common-law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers.’ Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58, 98 S.Ct. 1670, 1677, 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978). Thus suits against Indian tribes are barred 'absent a clear waiver by the tribe or congressional abrogation.' Oklahoma Tax Comm. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe, 498 U.S. 505, 509, 111 S.Ct. 905, 909, 112 L.Ed.2d 1112 (1991). A waiver of sovereign immunity ‘cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.’ United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399, 96 S.Ct. 948, 953-54, 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976) (quoting United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4, 89 S.Ct. 1501, 1503, 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969)).... [T]he extra-territorial nature of these transactions does not strip the Nation of its right to assert sovereign immuni-iy.... Without an explicit waiver, the Nation is immune from suit in state court even if the suit results from commercial activity occurring off the Nation's reservation.”