Cayuga Indian Nation v. Seneca County
761 F.3d 218
2d Cir.2014Background
- Seneca County initiated foreclosure to collect unpaid ad valorem property taxes on parcels owned by the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York.
- The Cayuga Nation invoked tribal sovereign immunity, and the district court entered a preliminary injunction halting the County’s foreclosure proceedings.
- Seneca County appealed, asking the Second Circuit to permit foreclosure suits against tribes to collect taxes by narrowing tribal immunity (e.g., by recognizing a commercial-activity or in rem exception).
- The County relied on the vacatur of this Court’s prior Madison County decision to argue that Madison was not binding and that tribal immunity should be limited.
- The Second Circuit relied on recent Supreme Court precedent (notably Michigan v. Bay Mills) reaffirming broad tribal sovereign immunity and refused to carve exceptions; it affirmed the preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tribal sovereign immunity bars county foreclosure to collect taxes on tribal land | Cayuga: immunity shields tribe from suit absent waiver or congressional abrogation | Seneca: immunity should be limited to allow foreclosures (commercial-activity or in rem exception) | Held: Immunity bars the foreclosure; no judicially created exceptions allowed |
| Effect of vacatur of prior Second Circuit Madison County decision | Cayuga: Bay Mills and related Supreme Court precedent control; Madison’s reasoning stands | Seneca: vacatur frees this panel to reject Madison and narrow immunity | Held: Panel need not rely on Madison; Supreme Court’s Bay Mills reaffirmed broad immunity, defeating County’s argument |
| Whether City of Sherrill or Yakima imply abrogation of immunity | Cayuga: those cases do not abrogate tribal immunity from suit | Seneca/New York: those decisions cast doubt on immunity scope | Held: Court refused to read implied abrogation into Sherrill or Yakima; abrogation requires Congress |
| Whether the Cayuga waived immunity by prior arguments in state court | Seneca: Cayuga’s statements in NY Court of Appeals amounted to waiver or estoppel | Cayuga: waiver must be clear and unequivocal; no such statement exists | Held: No clear, unequivocal waiver shown; immunity stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S.Ct. 2024 (2014) (reaffirmed broad tribal sovereign immunity; rejected judicially created commercial-activity exception)
- Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998) (tribal immunity applies to off-reservation commercial acts; courts should not carve exceptions)
- Oneida Nation of N.Y. v. Cuomo, 645 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2011) (standards for preliminary injunction in tribal disputes)
- Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Madison County, 605 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2010) (addressed foreclosure/tax suits against tribes; previously held immunity barred such suits)
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978) (waiver of tribal immunity must be unequivocal)
- C & L Enters., Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 532 U.S. 411 (2001) (tribal waiver of immunity must be clear)
- Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Eng’g, P.C., 476 U.S. 877 (1986) (recognized tribal immunity as corollary to sovereignty)
- City of Sherrill, N.Y. v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197 (2005) (addressed limits on tribal powers post-reacquisition of land; did not abrogate immunity)
- County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, 502 U.S. 251 (1992) (distinguished immunity from other state power assertions; no implied abrogation)