835 F.3d 1255
10th Cir.2016Background
- The Ute Indian Tribe sued Utah and local governments beginning in 1975, arguing that lands within the original Uintah Valley Reservation remain "Indian country" and thus subject to federal/tribal (not state/local) criminal jurisdiction.
- In Ute III the Tenth Circuit (en banc) held that the original reservation boundaries — including many parcels opened to non-Indian settlement between 1905 and 1945 — remained Indian country. The Supreme Court denied review.
- After the Supreme Court’s decision in Hagen v. Utah, this court in Ute V modified its mandate to recognize that lands allotted or transferred to non-Indians between 1905 and 1945 are not Indian country, while lands that were not allotted and were restored to the Tribe in 1945 remain Indian country.
- Repeated relitigation and state prosecutions followed; the Tribe sought injunctive relief to enforce Ute III and Ute V. The district court dismissed the Tribe’s suit against the town of Myton; the Tenth Circuit reviews that dismissal on appeal.
- The Tribe alleged Myton contains parcels that were restored to tribal jurisdiction in 1945 and that Myton or its agents have attempted to prosecute tribal members on those restored tribal lands. The district court granted dismissal; the Tenth Circuit reverses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lands within Myton alleged to have been restored in 1945 qualify as Indian country under controlling precedent | Tribe: Complaint alleges Myton contains lands restored in 1945 that remain Indian country per Ute V | Myton: No land within Myton was subject to the 1945 restoration; Hagen’s statement that “Myton is not in Indian country” controls | Court: On a motion to dismiss, allegations must be taken as true; under Ute V those restored lands are Indian country; dismissal reversed |
| Whether Hagen’s reference to Myton eliminates tribal jurisdiction over all parcels in Myton | Tribe: Hagen addressed particular parcels and does not negate Ute V’s boundaries for restored lands | Myton: Relies on language in Hagen saying the town of Myton is not in Indian country | Court: Hagen concerned specific allotted parcels; Ute V’s interpretation of Hagen is controlling and does not render all of Myton outside Indian country |
| Applicability of issue preclusion and precedent to bind Myton | Tribe: Ute V’s mandate and precedent bind Myton; Myton is in privity with parties to prior cases | Myton: Implicitly argues prior rulings don’t foreclose its defense | Held: Ute V binds Myton as precedent and on preclusion grounds; Myton offers no valid reason to avoid that binding effect |
| Equity / laches defense by Myton | Myton: Long passage of time and administrative reliance justify dismissal or equitable relief | Tribe: Restoration lands are federal trust property; laches ordinarily cannot be invoked against the United States and prior federal/agency positions put Myton on notice | Held: Laches and equity not persuasive here; historical record and federal positions undercut Myton’s reliance claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah, 773 F.2d 1087 (10th Cir. 1985) (en banc) (initial decision that original reservation lands remained Indian country)
- Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah, 114 F.3d 1513 (10th Cir. 1997) (modifying mandate to treat lands allotted/transferred to non-Indians between 1905–1945 as non-Indian country)
- Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah, 790 F.3d 1000 (10th Cir. 2015) (affirming that Ute V boundaries must be enforced and ordering preliminary relief)
- Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (1994) (Supreme Court decision addressing whether certain parcels were Indian country)
- City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197 (2005) (describing laches and equitable defenses in land-rights context)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: accept well-pleaded allegations as true on motion to dismiss)
- Hydro Res., Inc. v. EPA, 608 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 2010) (noting Congress authorized "checkerboard" jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1151)
- Procter & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 427 F.3d 727 (10th Cir. 2005) (reassignment of cases on remand is warranted only in extreme circumstances)
- Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126 (1938) (laches ordinarily may not be asserted against the United States)