Daniel Miller v. Chad Wright
705 F.3d 919
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Miller, Lanphere, and Matheson, non-Indian/non-reservation residents, allege they paid a tribal cigarette tax and health fund fees at Matheson’s reservation store; the Tribe operates nearby stores and enforces the tax via a Washington-tribal compact (CTC).
- Miller and Lanphere sue for refunds and injunctions challenging the CTC-imposed fees and wholesale sourcing restrictions.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on tribal sovereign immunity.
- The Tribe asserts immunity extends to both the Tribe and its officials; the CTC does not constitute a waiver.
- Plaintiffs had prior state/tribal court litigation over the same taxes; res judicata/claim preclusion arguments were presented.
- The court reviews de novo the district court’s jurisdiction and sovereign immunity rulings, and ultimately affirms the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of tribal immunity via contract or mediation | Miller, Lanphere, Matheson argue CTC and mediation waive immunity | Tribe contends no clear waiver; CTC/mediation not explicit waivers | Immunity not waived by CTC or mediation |
| Abrogation of tribal immunity by federal antitrust law | Antitrust laws abrogate immunity | Antitrust laws do not clearly abrogate tribal immunity | Antitrust law does not abrogate tribal immunity |
| Immunity extends to tribal officials | Officials should be liable; immunity not covering officials | Officials act within official capacity; protected by immunity | Officials are protected; suits against officials barred to extent seeking monetary relief |
| Res judicata bars action | Claims identical to prior state/tribal actions | Final judgments in prior forums; privity with co-plaintiffs | Res judicata bars the action |
| Subject matter jurisdiction proper given sovereign immunity | District court lacks jurisdiction without waiver | Sovereign immunity preserves jurisdictional bar | District court correctly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wilbur, 674 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2012) (CTC framework; taxes to funding tribal government depend on tribal immunity)
- C & L Enters., Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 532 U.S. 411 (U.S. 2001) (arbitration/waiver provisions can waive immunity when contract design shows consent to non-tribal jurisdiction)
- Demontiney v. U.S. ex rel. Dep’t of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 255 F.3d 801 (9th Cir. 2001) (Distinguishes waiver signals; mediation provisions differ from C & L)
- Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (U.S. 1943) (Antitrust immunity for states; relevance to tribal immunity)
- Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2007) (MSA and state action immunity; limits to applying antitrust against tribes)
- Krystal Energy Co. v. Navajo Nation, 357 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2004) (Abrogation of immunity requires explicit congressional language)
- Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Ass’n v. Abbott Laboratories, 460 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1983) (distinguishes state purchases exemption from broad immunity)
- Donovan v. Coeur d’Alene Tribal Farm, 751 F.2d 1113 (9th Cir. 1985) (general applicability doctrine; three exceptions for tribes)