Background & Facts
The Upper Skagit Indian Tribe purchased a parcel of land in Washington State. The neighboring landowners, the Lundgrens, filed a quiet title action in state court, claiming that they had acquired title to a disputed strip of the tribe's land by adverse possession.
The tribe asserted sovereign immunity, arguing it could not be sued without its consent. The Lundgrens argued that the in rem exception to sovereign immunity applied — that is, because the suit was against the land (not against the tribe), tribal sovereign immunity did not attach.
The Washington Supreme Court agreed with the Lundgrens, but the U.S. Supreme Court reversed.
The Court's Holding
Justice Gorsuch, writing for a 7-2 majority, held that the Washington Supreme Court erred in applying a broad in rem exception to tribal sovereign immunity. The Court did not categorically resolve whether an in rem exception exists but held that the lower court's analysis was flawed and remanded for consideration of whether the "immovable property" exception — rooted in common-law sovereign immunity principles — might apply differently to tribal sovereignty.
Key Holding:
Tribal sovereign immunity is not automatically overcome by framing a lawsuit as an in rem proceeding against land. The lower court's assumption that sovereignty "has no role to play" in in rem actions was wrong. Any exception to tribal sovereign immunity must be grounded in the specific history of tribal sovereignty, not imported wholesale from state or foreign sovereign immunity doctrines.
Key Language
"Indian tribes are 'domestic dependent nations' that exercise 'inherent sovereign authority.' As dependents, tribes are not combatants combatants combatants combatants combatants... Their sovereignty is not equivalent to state or foreign sovereignty, and doctrines developed in those contexts cannot be mechanically applied."
"It is one thing to say that tribal immunity does not apply in any in rem proceeding. It is quite another to determine whether there is a narrower in rem exception applicable to tribal immunity... We leave it to the Washington Supreme Court to address that question on remand."
Justice Gorsuch: "The tribe's sovereign immunity may not be defeated merely by a claim that another party has superior title to the land. The tribe has the right not to be sued — that is what immunity means."
How This Case Supports ATN's Land Sovereignty
Upper Skagit protects ATN's land holdings from state court challenges. Neighbors, county officials, or other parties cannot simply file quiet title actions to chip away at ATN's reservation lands.
- 1. Mendocino land disputes shielded. If Mendocino County, neighboring landowners, or anyone else tries to challenge ATN's land title through state court quiet title actions, Upper Skagit provides that tribal sovereign immunity is a defense — the suit cannot proceed without ATN's consent.
- 2. No adverse possession against tribal land. Upper Skagit's practical effect is to prevent state courts from stripping tribal land through adverse possession claims. Sovereign immunity means the tribe can't be forced to defend title in state court.
- 3. Trust land doubly protected. Trust land held by the United States for ATN has both federal sovereign immunity (it's federal land) and tribal sovereign immunity. Upper Skagit extends protection even to tribal fee land purchases.
- 4. Gorsuch as tribal-law ally. Justice Gorsuch has emerged as the Court's strongest voice on tribal sovereignty (see also McGirt, Brackeen). Upper Skagit is one of his early tribal sovereignty opinions.
Related Cases
- Michigan v. Bay Mills (2014) — Sovereign immunity reaffirmed for commercial activity
- Kiowa Tribe v. Manufacturing Technologies (1998) — Immunity covers on- and off-reservation activity
- OTC v. Citizen Band Potawatomi (1991) — Immunity bars state tax enforcement suits
- County of Oneida v. Oneida (1985) — Federal common-law land claims; Nonintercourse Act protections
- City of Sherrill v. Oneida (2005) — Land sovereignty context; IRA trust route
- McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) — Another Gorsuch tribal sovereignty opinion