978 F.3d 829
2d Cir.2020Background
- In 2007 the Cayuga Indian Nation purchased several parcels in Seneca County, NY and refused to pay county property taxes, claiming the parcels lay in “Indian country.”
- Seneca County initiated Article 11 tax-foreclosure proceedings in 2010 to enforce unpaid tax liens and seize the properties to satisfy the tax debt.
- The Cayuga Nation sued in federal court seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, arguing tribal sovereign immunity and claims under the Nonintercourse Act; the district court enjoined the foreclosures on sovereign-immunity grounds and later granted summary judgment for the Tribe.
- On appeal the County argued (1) a common-law "immovable-property" exception to sovereign immunity permits suits resolving rights in real property and (2) City of Sherrill eliminated tribal immunity in tax-collection/foreclosure contexts.
- The Second Circuit affirmed: even if an immovable-property exception exists, Article 11 foreclosures are functionally executions to satisfy a money debt (not suits to determine competing property rights) and thus fall within traditional immunity from execution; Sherrill addresses a tribe’s susceptibility to taxation, not its immunity from suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cayuga) | Defendant's Argument (Seneca County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an immovable-property exception to tribal sovereign immunity permits Article 11 tax-foreclosure suits | Tribal sovereign immunity bars courts from entertaining county foreclosure suits; foreclosure is an enforcement action for money, not an action to determine property rights | Common-law immovable-property exception permits lawsuits concerning real property located in the forum, so County may foreclose to enforce tax liens | Foreclosure is a remedy to collect a money debt (akin to execution); it does not seek to adjudicate competing property rights, so the immovable-property exception does not authorize the suit |
| Whether Sherrill v. Oneida eliminated tribal sovereign immunity for tax-collection suits | Sherrill addresses taxability and regulatory authority, not immunity from suit; it does not authorize state/county foreclosure actions against tribes | Sherrill authorizes collection/enforcement actions where tribes repurchased historic lands and refuse to pay taxes | Sherrill narrowed tribes’ immunity as to taxation but did not abrogate tribal immunity from suit; it does not permit Article 11 foreclosures |
| Whether prior interlocutory opinions (Oneida I / Cayuga I) control disposition | Cayuga relies on earlier panels that concluded sovereign immunity bars county foreclosures | County contends prior interlocutory rulings don’t bind the merits here | Cayuga I is not dispositive on the merits given procedural posture; the court independently affirms immunity for the reasons stated (and notes Upper Skagit left immovable-property exception an open question) |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 572 U.S. 782 (U.S. 2014) (federally recognized tribes possess common-law sovereign immunity and courts should not carve out exceptions without Congress)
- City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 544 U.S. 197 (U.S. 2005) (addressed tribal susceptibility to state and local taxation of reacquired historic lands; relied on laches/acquiescence)
- Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. Madison County, 605 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2010) (panel opinion concluding tribal sovereign immunity precluded county foreclosure; later vacated on remand facts)
- Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Seneca County, 761 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 2014) (interlocutory panel reaffirming that counties cannot pursue Article 11 foreclosures against tribes)
- Kiowa Tribe v. Mfg. Tech., Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (U.S. 1998) (tribal immunity from suit is independent of the tribe’s lands)
- Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 498 U.S. 505 (U.S. 1991) (tribal immunity from suit can bar state attempts to sue to collect taxes even where taxation is permissible)
- Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations v. City of New York, 551 U.S. 193 (U.S. 2007) (recognized the immovable-property exception allowing suits that directly contest property interests, e.g., validity of tax liens)
- Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren, 138 S. Ct. 1649 (U.S. 2018) (Supreme Court declined to decide scope of immovable-property exception and left that question to the state court)
- Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116 (U.S. 1812) (early common-law principle that sovereigns owning property abroad may be treated like private owners with respect to that property)