Poarch Band of Creek Indians v. James H. Hildreth, Jr.
656 F. App'x 934
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- The Poarch Band of Creek Indians (tribe) owns lands in Escambia County, Alabama, the United States holds title in trust pursuant to deeds executed in 1984–1995 under 25 U.S.C. § 465.
- Escambia County Tax Assessor James Hildreth sought to assess property taxes on the trust lands beginning in 2014–2015, prompting the tribe to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief to block taxation.
- The Secretary of the Interior formally recognized the Poarch Band in 1984 and the BIA placed acreage in trust and proclaimed a reservation in 1985; Hildreth knew of the trust conveyances as early as 1986.
- Hildreth relied on Carcieri v. Salazar (2009) to argue the Secretary lacked authority because the Poarch Band was not "under Federal jurisdiction" in 1934, implying §465 protection did not apply.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining tax assessment, finding tribal §465 exemption likely to succeed on the merits, irreparable injury to tribal sovereignty, minimal harm to Hildreth, and public interest favoring enforcement of federal law.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1362 and that Carcieri-based challenges to decades-old trust acquisitions must be raised timely in an APA action rather than as a collateral defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1362 | Tribe: §1362 applies because the Poarch Band is "duly recognized" by the Secretary and the dispute arises under federal law (tax exemption) | Hildreth: "duly recognized" should be limited by IRA §479 meaning tribes under Federal jurisdiction in 1934; thus no §1362 jurisdiction | §1362 plain language covers tribes "duly recognized" by the Secretary; court has jurisdiction and Carcieri does not control §1362 analysis |
| Whether Carcieri permits collateral challenges to long‑standing trust acquisitions | Tribe: Carcieri does not let parties mount belated collateral attacks; proper vehicle is a timely APA challenge | Hildreth: Carcieri shows Secretary lacked authority to take land into trust for post‑1934 tribes, so §465 exemption fails | Court: Carcieri governs Secretary authority but collateral attacks on decades‑old decisions are procedurally improper; APA is the proper, timely avenue |
| Preliminary injunction — likelihood of success on §465 exemption claim | Tribe: Trust deeds and Secretary actions show tribal lands are held in trust and exempt from state/local taxation under §465 | Hildreth: Lack of §465 protection if Secretary lacked authority (Carcieri) | Court: Tribe has substantial likelihood of success because Secretary's 1984–85 actions stand absent a timely APA challenge |
| Preliminary injunction — irreparable harm, balance of harms, public interest | Tribe: Tax assessment would irreparably invade tribal sovereignty; public interest favors enforcing federal law | Hildreth: County harmed by delayed tax collection | Court: Invasion of tribal sovereignty is irreparable and outweighs temporary county harm; injunction serves public interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009) (held Secretary’s authority under IRA §§465/479 turns on whether tribe was under federal jurisdiction in 1934)
- Moe v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of Flathead Reservation, 425 U.S. 463 (1976) (Tax Injunction Act does not bar a tribe from suing to challenge state tax on reservation land)
- United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634 (1978) (interpreting historical tribal status and federal jurisdiction questions related to Indian Country)
- Alabama v. PCI Gaming Auth., 801 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2015) (held collateral Carcieri challenges to long‑standing trust acquisitions are procedurally improper; APA is the proper vehicle)
- Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163 (11th Cir. 2000) (articulates four‑factor preliminary injunction test used by the court)