Court Opinion

ID: 9577036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:31:03.973847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:19:52.072312
License: Public Domain

SUMMERS, Vice Chief Justice,
dissenting, with whom KAUGER, Chief Justice, joins.
¶ 1 My views on the judgment itself are expressed in the opinion dissenting from Aircraft Equipment Co. v. Kiowa Tribe, 921 P.2d 359, 362 (Okla.1996). I also dissent from today’s decision to permit collection of the judgment from the Tribe in derogation of Kiowa tribal sovereign immunity.
¶ 2 The majority concludes that if the state has the power to render a judgment against a tribe, it thus has the power to enforce the judgment. This sounds reasonable, but it is in direct conflict with the United States Supreme Court case of Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 498 U.S. 505, 111 S.Ct. 905, 112 L.Ed.2d 1112 (1991). In Citizen Band, with Chief Justice Rehnquist writing, the Court opened by saying:
Indian tribes are “domestic dependent nations” that exercise inherent sovereign authority over their members and territories. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, [30 U.S.](5 *1150Pet.) 1, 17, 8 L.Ed. 25 (1831). Suits against Indian tribes are thus barred by sovereign immunity absent a clear waiver by the tribe or congressional abrogation.1 Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58, 98 S.Ct. 1670, 1677, 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978). 498 U.S. at 507 [111 S.Ct. at 908]
It went on to say:
A doctrine of Indian tribal sovereign immunity was originally enunciated by this Court and has been reaffirmed in a number of eases. (Citations omitted) 498 U.S. at 510 [111 S.Ct. at 910]
Then after discussing Congress’s consistent reluctance to undercut tribal sovereign immunity it said:
Under these circumstances, we are not disposed to modify the long-established principle of tribal sovereign immunity. 498 U.S. at 510 [111 S.Ct. at 910]
The Supreme Court went on to hold that Oklahoma had the power to tax the Tribe’s sale of cigarettes to non-tribal members. However, the Court recognized that while a judgment in favor of the Oklahoma Tax Commission for the tax on such sales was valid, the Tax Commission lacked the power to enforce it directly against the Tribe. As to enforcement of such a judgment the Court stated:
There is no doubt that sovereign immunity bars the State from, pursuing the most efficient remedy, but we are not persuaded that it lacks any adequate remedy. We have never held that individual agents or officers of a tribe are not liable for damages in actions brought by the State. See Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). And under today’s decision, States may of course collect the sales tax from cigarette wholesalers, either by seizing unstamped cigarettes off the reservation, Colville, supra, 447 U.S. at 161, 162, 100 S.Ct. at 2085, 2085-2086, or by assessing wholesalers who supplied unstamped cigarettes to the tribal stores, City Vending of Muskogee, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm’n, 898 F.2d 122 (10th Cir.1990). States may also enter into agreements with the tribes to adopt a mutually satisfactory regime for the collection of this sort of tax. See 48 Stat. 987, as amended, 25 U.S.C. § 476. And if Oklahoma and other States similarly situated find that none of these alternative produce the revenues which they are entitled, they may of course seek appropriate legislation from Congress, (emphasis added)
Id. at 514, 111 S.Ct. at 912. This paragraph clearly shows that in lawsuits against Indian tribes a right does not necessarily carry with it a complete remedy, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. The majority’s position to the contrary today is inconsistent with Citizen Band.
¶ 3 The Court attempts to distinguish Citizen Band by pointing out that suits against individuals or officers of the tribe are permitted, and that the state as judgment creditor could also pursue the wholesalers who provided the unstamped cigarettes. That is true. What today’s Court fails to note is that the present action is not one against individual officers of the tribe nor some third party. This case is against the Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma. It is strange, to say the least, that this Court gives Aircraft Equipment Co., as a judgment creditor, a remedy against an Indian tribe which the United States Supreme Court says the State of Oklahoma, as a judgment creditor, would not have and could not use against an Indian tribe. “There is no doubt that sovereign immunity bars the State from pursuing the most efficient remedy. ...” Id.
¶ 4 Enforcement of a judgment by means of judicial process against the Tribe is unlawful. I respectfully dissent.

. This rule is not recognized by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma. See Hoover v. Kiowa Tribe, 909 P.2d 59 (Okla.1995); Aircraft Equipment Co., supra.