Lewis v. Clarke
137 S. Ct. 1285, 197 L. Ed. 2d 631, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 2796 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An Indian tribe's sovereign immunity does not bar an individual-capacity damages action against a tribal employee for a tort committed within the scope of employment. A tribe's voluntary decision to indemnify its employee for such a tort does not extend the tribe's immunity to the employee.
Facts:
- William Clarke was an employee of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority, an arm of the federally recognized Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut.
- As part of his employment, Clarke was driving a limousine to transport patrons of the Mohegan Sun Casino.
- While driving on Interstate 95 in Norwalk, Connecticut, off tribal lands, Clarke's limousine struck a vehicle occupied by Brian and Michelle Lewis from behind.
- A provision in the Mohegan Tribe Code stated that the Gaming Authority would indemnify its employees from financial loss arising from negligence claims if the employee was acting within the scope of their employment.
- The indemnification policy did not apply if the employee engaged in 'wanton, reckless or malicious' activity.
Procedural Posture:
- Brian and Michelle Lewis sued William Clarke in his individual capacity in a Connecticut state trial court.
- Clarke filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, asserting tribal sovereign immunity.
- The trial court denied Clarke's motion to dismiss.
- Clarke appealed the trial court's decision to the Supreme Court of Connecticut.
- The Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed the trial court, holding that tribal sovereign immunity barred the suit because Clarke was acting within the scope of his employment.
- The Lewises, 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 an Indian tribe's sovereign immunity bar an individual-capacity damages action in state court against a tribal employee for a tort committed within the scope of employment, particularly when the tribe has a policy to indemnify the employee?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Sotomayor
No. Tribal sovereign immunity does not bar the suit. In an individual-capacity suit against a tribal employee, the employee, not the tribe, is the real party in interest. The Court's analysis, consistent with principles of state and federal sovereign immunity, distinguishes between individual- and official-capacity suits. Official-capacity suits are effectively against the sovereign and are barred, but personal-capacity suits seek to impose individual liability on an officer for their personal actions. The fact that an employee was acting within the scope of employment is not sufficient to convert an individual-capacity suit into one against the sovereign. Furthermore, a tribe's voluntary decision to indemnify its employee does not extend its sovereign immunity, because the critical inquiry is who is legally bound by the judgment, not who ultimately pays the damages.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
No. The suit is not barred. Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment based on his consistent view that tribal immunity should not extend to a tribe's commercial activities conducted beyond its territory. Because the tort arose from an off-reservation commercial act, he would hold that the employee cannot assert the tribe's immunity, regardless of the capacity in which he was sued.
Concurring - Justice Ginsburg
No. The suit is not barred. Justice Ginsburg concurred in the judgment, adhering to her dissenting views in prior cases that tribal immunity should not apply when tribes interact with non-tribal members outside reservation boundaries. However, she agreed with the majority's narrower holding that a tribe's voluntary indemnification agreement does not convert a suit against an employee in their individual capacity into a suit against the tribe itself.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the boundary of tribal sovereign immunity, aligning the doctrine for tribal employees with the established framework for state and federal employees. By holding that scope-of-employment is insufficient to trigger immunity for an individual-capacity suit, the Court prevents tribal immunity from becoming a shield for the personal torts of employees, especially those occurring off-reservation. The ruling ensures that individuals injured by tribal employees have a potential avenue for redress in state court. The Court's clear rejection of indemnification as a basis for immunity also reinforces the principle that sovereign immunity cannot be created or extended by a sovereign's own voluntary financial arrangements.
