Jamul Action Committee v. E. Sequoyah Simermeyer
974 F.3d 984
| 9th Cir. | 2020Background:
- A small Kumeyaay community living on a parcel in Rancho Jamul organized under the Indian Reorganization Act and, after a BIA‑authorized constitutional election in 1981, has been on the BIA’s published list of federally recognized tribes ever since.
- Internal disputes in the 1990s over membership (blood quantum) and leadership produced repeated administrative and judicial challenges; opponents repeatedly argued the Village was only an IRA‑created "community of adult Indians," not a historic tribe.
- JAC (Jamul Action Committee and affiliates) sued to stop construction/operation of a casino on the Village’s federal trust land, alleging the Village is not a federally recognized tribe and its land is not eligible for gaming under IGRA; the complaint named federal officials and five tribal officers.
- Congress in 1994 eliminated the statutory distinction between "created" and "historic" tribes and limited the BIA’s ability to classify recognized tribes differently, foreclosing the legal theory JAC presses.
- The district court dismissed most claims for failure to join the Jamul Indian Village (Rule 19) because the Village is protected by tribal sovereign immunity and therefore could not be joined; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jamul is a federally recognized tribe entitled to tribal sovereign immunity | JAC: Village is only an IRA "created" community, not a historic tribe, so it lacks inherent sovereign immunity | Village: BIA recognized the Village; federal law (including 1994 statutes) treats all federally recognized tribes equally and confers immunity | The Village is a federally recognized tribe and enjoys the same sovereign immunity as other recognized tribes |
| Whether tribal officers sued may be subjected to injunctive/declaratory relief under Ex parte Young | JAC: Suing tribal officers for prospective relief avoids sovereign immunity and permits challenge to casino/land status | Village: The officers are stand‑ins for the Village; the relief sought attacks tribal title and sovereignty so the Village is the real party in interest and immune | Ex parte Young does not apply because the Village, not the officers, is the real party in interest; claims against officers are barred by sovereign immunity |
| Whether Rule 19 requires joinder and, if joinder is infeasible, dismissal | JAC: The suit challenges federal approvals and thus can proceed without the Village; federal defendants or named officers can represent interests | Defendants: The Village has legally protected interests (trust land and tribal status) and cannot be joined due to immunity; no existing party can adequately represent it | The Village is a required party under Rule 19(a); joinder is infeasible; equity requires dismissal under Rule 19(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- Okla. Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505 (establishes that suits against Indian tribes are barred by tribal sovereign immunity absent waiver or congressional abrogation)
- Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (tribal sovereign immunity extends to commercial as well as governmental activities)
- Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 572 U.S. 782 (scope of tribal immunity is federal law and subject to Congress; discusses Ex parte Young limits)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (authorizes prospective injunctive relief against officers to enjoin ongoing violations of federal law)
- Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261 (Ex parte Young does not permit suits that are functional equivalents of quiet‑title actions against a sovereign)
- Lewis v. Clarke, 137 S. Ct. 1285 (individual officials are generally not protected by sovereign immunity when sued for damages in their personal capacities)
- Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425 (the court must determine whether the sovereign is the real, substantial party in interest)
- Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist. v. Lee, 672 F.3d 1176 (Ninth Circuit standard of review for Rule 19 dismissals)
- Cook v. AVI Casino Enters., Inc., 548 F.3d 718 (tribal immunity can extend to tribal officers where the tribe is the real party in interest)