Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Harnsberger, 697 F.3d 1272

Northern Arapaho Tribe sued Wyoming state and county officials seeking injunction over vehicle registration and excise taxes in the 1905 Act Area, claiming Indian country status and treaty/constitutional rights bar taxation.
District court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(7) for failure to join a party, after determining Eastern Shoshone and United States were indispensable under Rule 19(b) and could not feasibly be joined due to sovereign immunity.
The 1905 Act Area includes lands ceded in a 1905 transaction, some held in trust and some in fee, with Indian country status tied to that land and its governance.
Big Horn I litigation (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1988) addressed tribal water rights and included a stipulation about the reservation’s exterior boundaries; the district court considered its preclusive effect but did not conclude Indian country status was conclusively decided.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit agreed Eastern Shoshone is indispensable but vacated the dismissal with prejudice and remanded to dismiss without prejudice; the court declined to decide on Ex parte Young Joinder or United States status.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the Eastern Shoshone indispensable under Rule 19(a)/(b)?	Arapaho argues public-right or neighbor-tribe theories render Shoshone non-indispensable.	Shoshone has a protectable interest and sovereign immunity blocks joinder; its absence would risk prejudice and inconsistent obligations.	Eastern Shoshone indispensable; dismissal proper, but without prejudice.
May Ex parte Young permit joining the Eastern Shoshone to litigate?	Ex parte Young allows joining sovereigns to challenge ongoing federal-law violations.	Ex parte Young does not apply to tribal sovereign immunity nor to this suit against state officials for treaty rights.	Ex parte Young does not permit joinder here.
Was dismissal with prejudice proper where indispensable party cannot be joined?	Dismissal without prejudice would permit future joinder or relief.	Rule 19(b) factors weigh in favor of dismissal to prevent prejudice and inconsistent obligations.	Dismissal should be without prejudice; prejudice was not to be cured by a merits adjudication.

Big Horn I, 753 P.2d 76 (Wyo. 1988) (Wyoming Supreme Court decision addressing water rights and 1904/1905 land transactions)
Makah v. Verity, 910 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1990) (neighbor tribes and treaty rights; public-rights exception not applicable here)
Sac & Fox Nation v. Norton, 240 F.3d 1250 (10th Cir. 2001) (Rule 19 indispensability analysis factors and necessity of joining indispensable parties)
Crowe & Dunlevy v. Stidham, 640 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2011) (Ex parte Young exception extended to tribal sovereign immunity contexts)
Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102 (1968) (prejudice and adequacy considerations in Rule 19(b) analysis; complete settlement)
Davis ex rel. Davis v. United States, 343 F.3d 1282 (10th Cir. 2003) (indispensable-party analysis; abuse-of-discretion standard; factors for Rule 19(b))
Nichols v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 506 F.3d 962 (10th Cir. 2007) (collateral estoppel criteria for privity and final judgments)