Self v. Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of Trinidad Rancheria

Self v. Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of Trinidad Rancheria

Opinion

 [**256] BURNS, J.—The question in this case is whether sovereign immunity bars a quiet title action to establish a public easement for coastal access on property owned by an Indian tribe. We hold that the tribe's sovereign immunity bars the action. Congress has not abrogated tribal immunity for a suit to establish a public easement. The plaintiffs fail to persuade us that a common law exception to sovereign immunity for “immovable property” applies here. Consistent with decades of Supreme Court  [**257]  precedent, we defer to Congress to decide whether to impose such a limit, particularly given the importance of land acquisition to federal tribal policy. We affirm the trial court's dismissal of the suit.

 [*213] 

Background

CA(1)(1) As “‘separate sovereigns pre-existing the Constitution,’” Indian tribes possess the “‘common-law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers.’” (Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community (2014) 572 U.S. 782, 788 [188 L. Ed. 2d 1071, 134 S. Ct. 2024] (Bay Mills).) Tribes are domestic dependent nations subject to Congress's [***2]  plenary authority. (Ibid.) Tribal immunity is part and parcel of Indian sovereignty and self-governance. (Ibid.) It protects tribes from the financial burdens of defending against suits, encourages economic development and self-sufficiency, and furthers tribal self-governance. (People v. Miami Nation Enterprises (2016) 2 Cal.5th 222, 235 [211 Cal. Rptr. 3d 837, 386 P.3d 357] (Miami Nation).)

CA(2)(2) Because it is a matter of federal law, tribal immunity is “‘not subject to diminution by the States.’” (Bay Mills, supra, 572 U.S. at p 789.) Tribes enjoy immunity from suit regardless of whether their activities are commercial in nature or whether their activities take place on a reservation. (Id. at p. 790; Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. (1998) 523 U.S. 751, 758–760 [140 L. Ed. 2d 981, 118 S. Ct. 1700] (Kiowa).) The United States Supreme Court has “time and again … dismissed any suit against a tribe absent congressional authorization (or a waiver).” (Bay Mills, supra, 572 U.S. at p. 789.) In so doing, the court has deferred to Congress to determine the nature and limits of tribal immunity because it is Congress's job, not the courts', to weigh competing policies and create exceptions to tribal immunity. (Id. at pp. 800–801.)

In short, tribal immunity is the rule, subject only to two exceptions: when a tribe has waived its immunity or Congress has authorized the suit. (Bay Mills, supra, 572 U.S. at pp. 789–791.)

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.