IDAHO et al. v. COEUR d'ALENE TRIBE OF IDAHO et al.
521 U.S. 261 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity does not apply to suits against state officials that are the functional equivalent of a quiet title action which would divest the state of its sovereign authority over unique public lands, such as the beds of navigable waters.
Facts:
- The Coeur d’Alene Tribe is a federally recognized Native American tribe located in northern Idaho.
- An 1873 Executive Order established the boundaries for the Coeur d’Alene Reservation.
- Based on this 1873 order, the Tribe claims beneficial ownership of the beds and banks of Lake Coeur d’Alene and the navigable rivers and streams within the reservation's original boundaries.
- The State of Idaho, through its officials, actively regulates these submerged lands and waters, claiming ownership under the equal footing doctrine upon its admission to the Union in 1890.
- The Tribe's lawsuit sought to invalidate all Idaho statutes and regulations concerning the disputed lands and to establish its own exclusive right to use, occupy, and enjoy them.
Procedural Posture:
- The Coeur d’Alene Tribe sued the State of Idaho, various state agencies, and several state officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.
- The District Court dismissed the claims against the State and its agencies on Eleventh Amendment grounds.
- The District Court also dismissed the claims against the officials, finding the quiet title and declaratory relief claims were the functional equivalent of a suit against the state and dismissing the injunctive relief claim on the merits.
- The Tribe, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims against the State but reversed the dismissal of the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against the officials (the appellees at this stage), holding that these claims could proceed under Ex parte Young.
- The state officials, as petitioners, were granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Eleventh Amendment bar a federal court from hearing an action brought by an Indian Tribe against state officials for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief, where the relief sought is the functional equivalent of a quiet title action that would extinguish the state's regulatory and sovereign power over its navigable waters?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
Yes. The Eleventh Amendment bars the action because the Tribe's suit is the functional equivalent of a quiet title action that implicates special and unique state sovereignty interests. The relief sought goes beyond merely enjoining an unconstitutional act; it would effectively divest Idaho of control over lands and waters that are an essential attribute of its sovereignty, acquired under the equal footing doctrine. Lands underlying navigable waters have a unique status in law and are infused with a public trust that the state is bound to respect. Allowing such a suit to proceed under the guise of Ex parte Young would ignore the realities of the relief demanded and be a profound affront to the State's dignity and sovereign authority.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
Yes. The lawsuit is barred because it is the functional equivalent of an action to quiet title against the State and seeks to eliminate Idaho's sovereign jurisdiction altogether, not just its right to possess the land. Unlike prior cases where a court could distinguish between possession and title, such a distinction is impossible for submerged lands, as control over them is critical to a state's sovereignty and ability to regulate its navigable waters. A ruling in the Tribe’s favor would be indistinguishable from an order granting the Tribe title to sovereign lands, making the Ex parte Young exception inapplicable without adopting the broader, unnecessary balancing test proposed by the principal opinion.
Dissenting - Justice Souter
No. The Tribe's suit falls squarely within the traditional doctrine of Ex parte Young and should be allowed to proceed. The Tribe alleges an ongoing violation of federal law by state officers and seeks only prospective relief to enjoin those actions, which meets the two essential conditions for applying the doctrine. The fact that the case involves a dispute over property title and would affect the state's regulatory authority is irrelevant; previous cases, including Young itself, have permitted suits that had equally significant impacts on state interests. The majority's decision creates a new, unwarranted exception that redefines and diminishes federal subject-matter jurisdiction to vindicate federal rights.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of the Ex parte Young doctrine, creating a major exception for cases that are the 'functional equivalent of a quiet title action' implicating core state sovereignty. The controlling concurrence by Justice O'Connor establishes a more limited rule than Justice Kennedy's plurality opinion, which proposed a vague, case-by-case balancing test. The case reflects the Rehnquist Court's strong commitment to principles of federalism and state sovereign immunity, making it more difficult for plaintiffs, including Indian tribes, to sue states in federal court over disputes involving public lands and natural resources. It signals that federal courts must look beyond the form of the relief requested to the substantive impact on the state's sovereign interests.
Unlock the full brief for IDAHO et al. v. COEUR d'ALENE TRIBE OF IDAHO et al.