508 F.Supp.3d 486
D. Minn.2020Background
- Plaintiffs: Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, Band Police Chief Sara Rice, and Sergeant Derrick Naumann; Defendants: Mille Lacs County, County Attorney Joseph Walsh, and Sheriff Don Lorge. The Band alleges the 1855 Treaty Reservation was never diminished.
- In 2016 the County terminated a 2008 law‑enforcement agreement. County Attorney Walsh issued an "Opinion" and a "Northern Mille Lacs County Protocol" limiting Band officers’ criminal‑investigative authority to tribal trust lands and warning that enforcement outside those bounds could jeopardize admissibility of evidence or lead to criminal exposure for officers.
- County and Sheriff’s Office personnel, following Walsh’s Opinion/Protocol, repeatedly intervened in Band investigations (including on trust lands), directed deputies to take over scenes, and caused Band officers to limit patrols and investigations; several Band officers resigned and morale fell.
- The Band obtained BIA deputations/SLECs for some officers; in Sept. 2018 the parties entered a temporary Mutual Aid/Cooperative Agreement restoring concurrent jurisdiction pending resolution of this lawsuit.
- Procedural posture: Band sued for declaratory and injunctive relief. The court granted Plaintiffs’ summary judgment on standing, ripeness, and mootness; denied Walsh and Lorge’s summary judgment; denied defendants’ motion to strike and for sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject‑matter jurisdiction (federal question) | Federal common law defines tribe’s inherent law‑enforcement authority; federal courts have §1331 jurisdiction | Dispute is state/tribal law; TLOA displaces federal common law | Court: federal common law claim pleaded — §1331 jurisdiction exists |
| Standing | Protocol/Opinion caused concrete, particularized injuries to Band sovereignty, officers’ careers, morale, public safety | No cognizable injury; Band voluntarily complied on advice of counsel | Court: Plaintiffs have Article III standing; injuries traceable and redressable |
| Ripeness | Case presents fit legal questions and Plaintiffs suffered present hardship from Protocol enforcement | Not yet ripe because merits and scope unclear | Court: claims are ripe for adjudication |
| Mootness (2018 Agreement) | 2018 Agreement is temporary and will terminate if litigation ends; voluntary cessation doctrine inapplicable | 2018 Agreement resolves the dispute and moots case | Court: not moot — defendants cannot meet heavy burden to show non‑recurrence |
| Tenth Amendment / prosecutorial discretion | Plaintiffs seek declaration of sovereign authority, not to control charging decisions | Ruling would improperly interfere with prosecutorial discretion | Court: Tenth Amendment defense fails; federal courts may enjoin state/local officials who violate federal law |
| Younger abstention / federalism (Rizzo/O’Shea) | Plaintiffs seek federal declaration and injunction against interference, not an ongoing federal audit of state proceedings | Federal court should abstain or avoid injunctions implicating state prosecutions and internal operations | Court: Younger and Rizzo/O’Shea inapplicable; abstention not warranted |
| Eleventh Amendment | Plaintiffs’ official‑capacity claims barred by Eleventh Amendment | County and elected officials are not arms of the state | Court: Eleventh Amendment does not bar claims — county officials are not arms of the state |
| Absolute prosecutorial immunity | Walsh’s advice/enforcement decisions are prosecutorial acts immune from suit | Plaintiffs seek only injunctive/declaratory relief; prosecutorial immunity does not bar such relief | Court: absolute immunity does not bar declaratory or injunctive relief; dismissal on this ground denied |
Key Cases Cited
- County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, 470 U.S. 226 (declaring federal common law can define tribal rights)
- Nat’l Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845 (federal common law can resolve limits of tribal sovereignty)
- United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (federal common law fills gaps in Indian‑sovereignty questions)
- Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo Cnty., 863 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir.) (scope of tribal law‑enforcement authority treated as federal common law issue)
- Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (tribal criminal jurisdiction limits)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requirements)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (concreteness requirement for injury in fact)
- Am. Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (when Congress displaces federal common law)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (voluntary cessation/mootness standard)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (abstention for ongoing state proceedings)
- Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (limits on federal injunctions over local police administration)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (limits of prosecutorial immunity for non‑advocatory functions)
- Thomas v. St. Louis Bd. of Police Comm’rs, 447 F.3d 1082 (arm‑of‑state Eleventh Amendment analysis)
- Longie v. Spirit Lake Tribe, 400 F.3d 586 (8th Cir.) (distinguished — tribal land/contract context)