Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C. v. Stidham
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10824
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Crowe & Dunlevy represented the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town in 2007 tribal court litigation against Anderson defendants alleging interference with tribal government.
- Thlopthlocco is a federally recognized tribe, a Muscogee (Creek) tribal town with a Business Committee governing its affairs.
- The Thlopthlocco waived its sovereign immunity to adjudicate injunctive/declaratory relief in Muscogee Nation courts, but not elections disputes.
- Judge Stidham of the Muscogee Nation District Court ordered Crowe to return fees paid from the Thlopthlocco Treasury; Crowe sought injunctive relief in federal court.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the February 5 Order and related January 16 Order as to Crowe pending merits; Stidham appealed.
- The district court held tribal exhaustion not required due to exceptional circumstances and that Muscogee Nation courts lacked jurisdiction over Crowe’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ex parte Young barred sovereign immunity. | Crowe contends Ex parte Young applies to restrain tribal official enforcing federal-law violations. | Stidham argues tribal sovereign immunity and lack of federal-law violation. | Ex parte Young applies; the suit seeks prospective relief against a tribal official for an ongoing federal-law-like violation. |
| Whether Muscogee Judiciary is a required/indispensable party. | Court should consider Rule 19; non-Indian Crowe not indispensable. | Rule 19 requires joinder; tribal immunity may bar. | Rule 19 dismissal not necessary; nonjoinder not jurisdictional; exhaustion not required. |
| Whether tribal exhaustion was required before federal action. | Abstention favored to respect tribal sovereignty; Crowe not a party to tribal dispute. | Exhaustion advisable; tribal courts should decide jurisdiction over Crowe. | Exhaustion not required due to lack of tribal jurisdiction over Crowe and exceptional circumstances. |
| Whether the district court properly issued a preliminary injunction. | Injury irreparable due to sovereign immunity and inability to recoup fees. | Injunction improper absent irreparable harm. | Injunction proper given irreparable financial harm and likelihood of favorable merits. |
| Whether Judge Stidham has judicial immunity from suit. | Ex parte Young permits official-capacity claims against the judge. | Judicial immunity may bar claims; but Ex parte Young overrides. | Judicial immunity does not bar because Ex parte Young applies to official-capacity claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978) (tribal sovereignty and immunity principles)
- Kiowa Tribe v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998) (tribal immunity scope and congressional control)
- Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981) (general rule against tribal jurisdiction over nonmembers and exceptions)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (exception to sovereign immunity for ongoing federal-law violations)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (Ex parte Young rationale and sovereign immunity context)