7/23/20
¡ In 2014, the Supreme Court decided Bay Mills , a case that reaffirmed the broad reach of tribal sovereign immunity. ¡ The vote was 5-4. ¡ The Court held that in suits involving commercial activities on nontribal land, tribes are immune from suit so long as federal law has not expressly waived sovereign immunity. ¡ The decision also noted in dicta that a state may use alternative, state-specific enforcement measures against individuals affiliated with the commercial activity ¡ Such suggestion has been interpreted by some as signaling approval of leaving the resolution of state-tribe disputes to the states.
TRIBAL SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY: MICHIGANV. BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY
15
¡ The Supreme Court’s holding in Lewis v. Clarke (2017) effectively limited the scope of tribal sovereign immunity by effectuating a comparison between state and tribal sovereign immunity. ¡ That being said, the Court’s decision is relatively limited. ¡ In the opinion, Justice Sotomayer analogizes tribal sovereign immunity to state or federal immunity, acknowledging that tribal immunity is serious and legitimate in the eyes of the Court. ¡ Because it is a narrow opinion, the Lewis decision leaves many questions unanswered: ¡ Do tribal employees enjoy the same protections as their state and federal counterparts in respect to official immunity? ¡ Does tribal sovereign immunity apply when no forum will hear the case? ¡ This implication arose in Bay Mills and many hoped it would be resolved in Lewis .
TRIBAL SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY:
LEWISV. CLARKE
16
8
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs