Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation v. Utah
790 F.3d 1000
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- The Ute Indian Tribe sued Utah and several counties claiming state prosecutions of tribal members on lands the Tenth Circuit previously held were Indian country (Ute III) unlawfully relitigated reservation boundaries.
- After Ute III (773 F.2d 1087) and later proceedings (Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399), this court modified its mandate in Ute V (114 F.3d 1513) to apply Hagen to the Uintah Valley but preserved other lands as Indian country.
- State and local officials subsequently prosecuted tribal members for alleged crimes occurring in areas Ute III and Ute V had recognized as Indian country; the Tribe filed this federal suit and sought a preliminary injunction to stop a Wasatch County prosecution of tribal member Lesa Jenkins.
- Defendants asserted counterclaims against the Tribe and argued the Tribe had waived sovereign immunity via post-Ute agreements; Uintah County asserted its own immunity.
- The district court denied the Tribe’s preliminary injunction and denied tribal immunity; the Tribe appealed three interlocutory collateral orders to the Tenth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a preliminary injunction should bar state prosecution of a tribal member for offenses in lands held to be Indian country | Jenkins’s prosecution infringes tribal sovereignty and risks renewed relitigation of settled boundary holdings; irreparable harm is present | State/Wasatch: no irreparable harm; public safety and policing on rights-of-way justify prosecution; AIA/Younger bar federal injunctions against ongoing state prosecutions | Reversed: injunction required. Invasion of tribal sovereignty is irreparable; merits favor Tribe; AIA relitigation exception and Younger do not bar relief |
| Whether the Anti-Injunction Act or Younger abstention prevents federal injunctive relief | AIA relitigation exception authorizes protection of prior federal judgments; Younger’s conditions not met because state interest is to relitigate federal boundary decisions | County/State: AIA/Younger counsel against injunction; county not bound by prior federal rulings because it wasn’t a party | Rejected: relitigation exception applies; county is in privity with state for preclusion; Younger inapplicable given federal primacy and harassment evidence |
| Whether the Tribe waived sovereign immunity to allow the counties’ counterclaims | Tribe: no clear and unequivocal waiver in agreements; Mutual Assistance Agreement disclaims waiver; UTERO waiver is limited and tribal-court–specific | State/Counties: post-Ute agreements, forum-selection clause, or UTERO ordinance constitute waiver; equitable recoupment or Ex parte Young doctrines permit counterclaims | Reversed: no clear and unequivocal waiver; counterclaims dismissed. Ex parte Young and recoupment inapplicable to suits against the tribe itself |
| Whether Uintah County is immune as an arm of the state | Tribe sues the county; county attorneys not shown to be state "arms" under Utah law and finance; county not entitled to sovereign immunity | Uintah: county officials are arms of the state and immune | Affirmed: counties are not arms of the state here; sovereign immunity does not extend to Uintah County |
Key Cases Cited
- Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah, 773 F.2d 1087 (10th Cir. 1985) (en banc) (initial determination of reservation boundaries)
- Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah, 114 F.3d 1513 (10th Cir. 1997) (modification of mandate to conform with Supreme Court decision in Hagen)
- Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (1994) (Supreme Court decision affecting Uintah Valley boundary)
- DeCoteau v. Dist. County Court, 420 U.S. 425 (1975) (states generally lack authority to prosecute Indians in Indian country)
- Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984) (treatment of diminished reservations and jurisdictional rules)
- Wyandotte Nation v. Sebelius, 443 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. 2006) (tribal sovereignty infringement can be irreparable injury supporting injunction)
- Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians v. Pierce, 253 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2001) (preliminary injunction standard and tribal sovereignty harms)
- Seneca-Cayuga Tribe v. Oklahoma ex rel. Thompson, 874 F.2d 709 (10th Cir. 1989) (federal policy protecting tribal self-government and Younger analysis)
- Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 486 U.S. 140 (1988) (Anti-Injunction Act relitigation exception)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (injunctive suits against state officials doctrine)
- Kiowa Tribe v. Manufacturing Technologies, 523 U.S. 751 (1998) (tribal sovereign immunity principle)
- Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe, 498 U.S. 505 (1991) (limits on permitting counterclaims against tribes)