Upper Skagit Tribe v. Lundgren
200 L. Ed. 2d 931, 138 S. Ct. 1649, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 3085 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Supreme Court clarified that County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation, which concerned the tax consequences of the Indian General Allotment Act, did not establish a general principle that tribal sovereign immunity does not apply to in rem lawsuits.
Facts:
- Ancestors of the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe lived for centuries along the Skagit River in northwestern Washington State.
- In 1855, the Skagit people and other tribes agreed to cede their lands to the United States through the Treaty of Point Elliott.
- In 1981, the federal government set aside a small reservation for the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe.
- In 2013, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe purchased a roughly 40-acre plot of land, adjacent to its reservation, with the intention of asking the federal government to take it into trust.
- The Tribe commissioned a boundary survey of the newly purchased land.
- The survey indicated that a barbed wire fence, running along the boundary separating the Tribe’s land from land owned by Sharline and Ray Lundgren, was in the wrong place, leaving about an acre of the Tribe’s land on the Lundgrens’ side.
- The Tribe informed the Lundgrens of its intent to tear down the fence, clearcut the disputed acre, and build a new fence in the correct location.
Procedural Posture:
- The Upper Skagit Indian Tribe purchased a plot of land and a survey indicated a boundary fence with the Lundgrens' property was incorrect, placing some of the Tribe's land on the Lundgrens' side.
- Sharline and Ray Lundgren filed a quiet title action against the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe in Washington state court (a trial court/court of first instance), invoking adverse possession and mutual acquiescence doctrines.
- The Tribe asserted sovereign immunity from the suit.
- The Washington Supreme Court (the highest court of Washington State) rejected the Tribe’s immunity claim, reasoning that, under County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation, tribal sovereign immunity does not apply to in rem suits, and ruled for the Lundgrens.
- The Upper Skagit Indian Tribe (petitioner) sought a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation establish a principle that tribal sovereign immunity does not apply to in rem lawsuits concerning real property?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Gorsuch
No, County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation does not establish a principle that tribal sovereign immunity does not apply to in rem lawsuits concerning real property. The Court explained that Yakima addressed a question of statutory interpretation concerning the Indian General Allotment Act of 1887, not the scope of tribal sovereign immunity. The General Allotment Act sought to assimilate Indians by allotting reservation land to individual tribal members and issuing fee patents, making them subject to state laws and taxes. While Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes held that Section 6 of the Act did not allow states to impose in personam taxes (like on cigarette sales) on transactions on fee-patented land within a reservation due to impracticality, Yakima distinguished Moe. Yakima held that Section 6 did allow states to collect in rem property taxes on fee-patented land within reservations because such 'parcel-by-parcel determinations' for property tax liability were 'not impracticable.' Thus, Yakima merely interpreted a specific statutory relic in light of a distinguishable precedent, resolving nothing about the law of sovereign immunity. The Court declined to address the Lundgrens' alternative common-law argument regarding an 'immovable property exception' to sovereign immunity, remanding it for the Washington Supreme Court to consider first, given its late emergence in the case and its significant implications for all tribes.
Concurring - Chief Justice Roberts
No, County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation does not establish a principle that tribal sovereign immunity does not apply to in rem lawsuits concerning real property, but the inability to resolve property disputes involving tribes presents an intolerable problem that warrants further consideration of an immovable property exception to sovereign immunity. Chief Justice Roberts joined the majority but emphasized the 'intolerable' consequences if there is no means of resolving property ownership disputes when a tribe asserts sovereign immunity over non-trust, non-reservation land. He dismissed the Tribe's suggestion of negotiation and the Solicitor General's suggestion that the Lundgrens provoke a conflict to induce a waiver of immunity as inadequate remedies. He pointed to the long-standing international law principle of an 'immovable property exception' to sovereign immunity, which treats a foreign state holding real property outside its territory like a private individual, and noted its application to state sovereign immunity. He expressed hope that if this rule does not extend to tribal assertions over non-trust, non-reservation property, the question of sovereign immunity in such circumstances would need to be addressed in a future case.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
No, County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation does not establish a principle that tribal sovereign immunity does not apply to in rem lawsuits concerning real property; however, the Court should have resolved the critical question of whether an immovable property exception applies to tribal sovereign immunity in such suits. Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that the Court should have answered the question it took the case to resolve regarding sovereign immunity in in rem actions. He contended that the 'immovable property' exception to sovereign immunity is 'settled, longstanding, and obviously applies to tribal immunity,' just as it does to every other form of sovereign immunity. He traced the exception through centuries of common law, international law scholars, and domestic authorities, emphasizing its basis in the principle of lex rei sitae. He argued that tribal immunity, being a judge-made doctrine and tribes being 'domestic dependent nations' with limited sovereignty, should not be broader than other forms of sovereign immunity and must be subject to this exception. He found the arguments against applying the exception to tribal immunity unconvincing and stated that extending immunity further would contradict the bedrock principle of state sovereignty over land within its borders, causing needless delay and uncertainty for property owners like the Lundgrens.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies that County of Yakima is not a precedent for generally limiting tribal sovereign immunity in in rem actions, thereby correcting a misunderstanding prevalent in some lower courts. By remanding the question of the 'immovable property exception,' the Supreme Court deferred a potentially far-reaching decision, leaving lower courts to grapple with a complex area of tribal immunity, which could lead to further appellate litigation and potential future Supreme Court review. The concurring and dissenting opinions underscore the practical challenges and potential injustices private citizens face in land disputes with tribes when a clear exception to immunity is not established, highlighting the tension between tribal sovereignty and fundamental state territorial jurisdiction principles.
