Lewis v. Clarke (15-1500)

argument 15-1500

Lewis v. Clarke

Supreme Court of the United States 56 min 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the legal basis for treating an individual‑capacity claim against a tribal employee as not implicating tribal sovereign immunity?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument next this morning in case fifteen fifteen hundred, Lewis versus Clark. Mr Miller.

Benjamin D. Miller 0:07

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. In an individual capacity action against a government employee, the plaintiff seeks relief from the employee personally. The judgment is not enforceable against the government. For that reason, such an action does not implicate sovereign immunity. This court has repeatedly applied that principle to individual capacity actions against federal and state employees, and it applies equally when the defendant is an employee of an Indian tribe. In advocating a contrary rule, respondent takes the position that plaintiffs who have had no connection to an Indian tribe whatsoever who are injured as a result of a tribal employee's negligence in carrying on a commercial activity miles away from a reservation.

Benjamin D. Miller 0:49

should have no remedy accept whatever the tribe chooses to provide in tribal court. That position represents an extraordinary and unwarranted expansion of tribal immunity.

Unknown 1:02

If it were a federal employee Then you would have the Westfall Act if it was State employee, you would have the same regime and the tribe says, And we do the same thing. Uh You can sue for a In our court, just as you could sue in Federal Court under the Westphal Act, in Connecticut Court. under the Connecticut Act and you can sue it all for it.

Benjamin D. Miller 1:25

Well a and when a claim arises within the reservation uh that is subject to the tribe's legislative and adjudicatory jurisdiction, then the tribe has the authority to define how that claim shall be handled. But here we're talking about a claim that arose under Connecticut law from an accident you know on a Connecticut highway, not on the reservation, and the tribe does not have the authority to define uh the process for for handling that claim. That's subject to Connecticut law. So the the the analogy I think that they're trying to draw is if you had an employee of one state who you know was involved in an accident in a different state Uh and there are a lot of reasons that the situation isn't really analogous, um but but even taking it on its own terms

Benjamin D. Miller 2:12

Uh the forum state. uh has jurisdiction over that case. The foreign state can resolve that. It doesn't have to Uh send the c send the plaintiffs off uh to file in the in the state of that the employee was from. So what the what the what the respondent is asking for here uh i is a sort of immunity, uh a sort of ability to control how the litigation proceeds uh that is unlike what any other state uh would enjoy. Um And i i in in his briefing

Elena Kagan 2:43

under our decision in Hyatt. Um w uh Clark would have been entitled to the immunity that um Connecticut gave its own officials.

Benjamin D. Miller 2:57

Well uh th th there are a c a couple of antecedent questions there, Your Honor.

Elena Kagan 3:01

I agree. Uh

Benjamin D. Miller 3:02

so y one, Hyatt is about the full faith and credit clause, which applies between states and not

Elena Kagan 3:07

apply to the

Benjamin D. Miller 3:08

not tribes. Uh Hyatt is also about uh an action against a state agency and not an individual capacity action against a state employment. You're absolutely true. We

Elena Kagan 3:16

haven't extended Hyatt that far, yet.

Benjamin D. Miller 3:18

But i but i e even you know granting both of those extensions of the decision Uh the the rule in in Hyatt is that the state cannot treat uh another state worse than it would treat itself. So i if you applied the analogy here, uh you would say the the Connecticut has a regime in which uh an action against a state employee is barred, but instead you sue the state directly. So uh applying that here you would say, well we we can't sue Mr Clark, so instead we get to sue the tribe. But the tribe doesn't want that. Because the tribe is not willing to subject itself to jurisdiction in Connecticut. and the tribe has not waived its sovereign immunity in Connecticut courts. So uh the the tribe is is not asking for application of that principle of of Hyatt.

Benjamin D. Miller 4:04

It's asking for something Uh uh quite a bit more. Um and i it's what it is asking for is the authority to legislate. uh for how uh l litigation arising out of uh vehicle accidents off the reservation in the state of Connecticut shall be handled.