Upper Skagit Tribe v. Lundgren
584 U.S. 554
SCOTUS2018Background
- The Upper Skagit Tribe purchased ~40 acres in Washington in 2013 and hired a survey that suggested about one acre lay across a longstanding boundary fence with neighbors Sharline and Ray Lundgren.
- The Lundgrens filed a quiet-title suit in Washington state court, asserting adverse possession and mutual acquiescence based on longstanding use and possession of the disputed acre.
- The Tribe asserted tribal sovereign immunity to avoid the suit.
- The Washington Supreme Court rejected the Tribe’s immunity defense, reasoning that County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes (interpreted by that court) meant tribal immunity does not bar in rem quiet-title actions.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether Yakima governs sovereign-immunity limits and whether in rem actions against tribes are categorically outside tribal immunity.
- The Supreme Court held Yakima was solely a statutory interpretation of the General Allotment Act and did not resolve tribal sovereign-immunity scope; it remanded for the state court to consider an alternative common-law immovable-property exception to tribal immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Lundgrens' Argument | Tribe/United States' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether County of Yakima means tribes lack sovereign immunity in in rem suits over property | Yakima permits in rem jurisdiction over tribal-owned fee land; immunity does not bar quiet-title in rem actions | Yakima concerned statutory tax interpretation, not sovereign immunity scope | Court: Yakima was statutory (Allotment Act) interpretation and does not resolve sovereign immunity question; vacated and remanded |
| Whether the immovable-property (lex rei sitae) exception to sovereign immunity applies to tribes | Tribe purchasing off-reservation land loses immunity re: that land; in rem suits fall within longstanding exception | Tribe/US: tribal immunity differs from foreign/state immunity; judges should defer to political branches; immunity may still bar such suits | Court: Declined to decide; remanded for Washington Supreme Court to address the immovable-property argument in the first instance |
| Proper immediate remedy for property owner facing tribal immunity | Lundgrens: judicial relief should be available; state adjudication of title should proceed | Tribe: sovereign immunity protects against suit; private negotiation or federal trust process is appropriate | Court: Did not provide alternative remedy; noted state court should address immovable-property exception; declined to adopt last-minute alternative ground |
| Whether courts should resolve new common-law immunity limits raised late in the case | Lundgrens/SG urged immediate adjudication of immovable-property exception | Tribe/US argued immunity principles and foreign-affairs concerns counsel restraint | Court: Exercised restraint — remanded for state court to decide first; emphasized seriousness of altering tribal immunity doctrine |
Key Cases Cited
- County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation, 502 U.S. 251 (1992) (interpreting the General Allotment Act and holding states may collect property taxes on fee-patented land within reservations)
- Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of Flathead Reservation, 425 U.S. 463 (1976) (held §6 of the Allotment Act could not be read to allow in personam state taxation of transactions between Indians on fee land within a reservation)
- Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116 (1812) (classic statement that foreign sovereigns holding private property in another jurisdiction may be treated like private individuals as to that property)
- Georgia v. Chattanooga, 264 U.S. 472 (1924) (state sovereign immunity does not extend to land acquired by one State in another State)
- Permanent Mission of India to United Nations v. City of New York, 551 U.S. 193 (2007) (FSIA codified preexisting real-property exception to foreign sovereign immunity)
- Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998) (recognizing tribal sovereign immunity but noting it is not coextensive with state immunity)