Lewis v. Clarke, 137 S. Ct. 1285

A Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority employee (William Clarke) struck the Lewises' car on an interstate while driving casino patrons; Clarke conceded negligence.
Lewises sued Clarke in his individual capacity in Connecticut state court seeking damages under state law.
Clarke moved to dismiss, claiming tribal sovereign immunity because he was acting within the scope of his employment and the Gaming Authority (an arm of the Tribe) is immune; he also pointed to a Mohegan indemnification statute.
The trial court denied dismissal, finding Clarke (not the Tribe) was the real party in interest and indemnification does not expand immunity.
The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed, holding tribal sovereign immunity barred the suit because Clarke was acting within the scope of employment.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the Connecticut Supreme Court, holding tribal immunity does not bar individual-capacity suits against tribal employees, and indemnification does not change that analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether tribal sovereign immunity bars an individual-capacity tort suit against a tribal employee acting within scope of employment	Lewises: Suit is against Clarke individually; Tribe's immunity not implicated because judgment won't bind tribe	Clarke: Because he acted within scope for a tribal instrumentality, tribal sovereign immunity should bar the suit	Held: Tribe is not the real party in interest in individual-capacity suits; sovereign immunity does not bar the suit
Whether a tribal indemnification provision converts an individual-capacity suit into one against the tribe (thus invoking immunity)	Lewises: Indemnity is voluntary and does not change who is legally bound; does not create immunity	Clarke: Indemnification means Tribe will pay judgment, so immunity should apply	Held: Indemnification does not alter the real-party-in-interest analysis; it cannot extend tribal sovereign immunity to individual employees

Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (distinguishing individual- and official-capacity suits for immunity analysis)
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (official-capacity suits are suits against the sovereign)
Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425 (indemnification does not alter Eleventh Amendment immunity analysis)
Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (official-capacity relief is against the office/sovereign)
Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682 (judgment that does not bind the sovereign does not implicate sovereign immunity)
Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (sovereign immunity protects governmental decisionmaking and resource allocation)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (personal immunity doctrines)
Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (personal immunity types and limits)
Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp., 513 U.S. 30 (analysis tied to whether judgment must be paid from a State treasury)
Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (background on tribal sovereign immunity)