Upper Skagit Tribe v. Lundgren (17-387)

argument 17-387

Upper Skagit Tribe v. Lundgren

Supreme Court of the United States 55 min 6 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 issue at the heart of Upper Skagit Tribe v. Lundgren?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument this morning in case seventeen three eighty seven, the Upper Skajet Indian tribe versus Lundgren. Mr Hawkins.

Unknown 0:17

Mr Chief Justice, I may please the Court. The respondent sued the tribe to challenge the tribe's title of record to the property at issue. This Court has consistently held that sovereign immunity bars suits against tribal governments. Respondents' own prayer for relief establishes that their suit is an attack on the tribe's interests in the property. confirming that sovereign immunity bars their claim. What the uh Mm. Is it not the case that no other political entity would be immune from such a From such a quiet title suit, not the United States, not the state of the United States. not a a foreign government. So you you are claiming a kind of super sovereign immunity with a tribe that no no one else gets.

Unknown 1:13

Uh Justice Ginsburg, that in fact is not the case. The United States would not be subject to a c uh claim Along the same factual lines as this. The quiet title actually Because this is the adverse possession. Correct.

John G. Roberts 1:29

What um what are the Lundgrins supposed to do in this situation if they can't bring illegal action

Unknown 1:35

uh affecting the tribe? Y Your Honor, the Lungrins are in a situation where uh similar to uh other states that have been confronted with sovereign immunity, if for example in the Potawatomi case where they were unable to enforce their taxing authority and the tri the court recognized that sometimes sovereign immunity will lead to results that preclude peo individuals from being able to sue for relief. That being said, uh In this instance it would be helpful for all of the parties to understand their legal standings before they engage in negotiations. It's our anticipation that once this case is removed or resolved, I beg your pardon. that we would hopefully be able to engage in a negotiation with the

John G. Roberts 2:27

be in a better position when that negotiation started, wouldn't you, if we have a ruling saying that you can't be sued?

Unknown 2:34

Either way both parties would be more informed as to what their legal positions were during the negotiations, your Honor.

Stephen G. Breyer 2:41

What happens generally if a tribe buys land or it d uh or thinks it owns land in downtown Tulsa or New York City or any other place off the reservation and They they send members of the tribe there and somehow they are in possession of or at least part of it. How is that dispute resolved? I I don't

Unknown 3:01

understand the question.

Stephen G. Breyer 3:02

Well what worries me is if there is sovereign immunity and if members of a tribe acting for the tribe obtain property. They they g they have a building or an empty lot or somewhere and they're they're there uh and uh there's another person who believes he owns the property. Or the lot, the building. And so they're two different people, a tribe and another group, both of which thinks they own a lot in New York City. or Tulsa. How is that dispute resolved? Normally we resolve it in a court. But how, in your opinion, will the dispute how has it been resolved? What I am thinking of is I joined a case saying there was broad sovereign immunity. Yes. I thought Congress would act. But it hasn't. And tribes have business interests all over the country, all over the place.

Stephen G. Breyer 3:55

And

Unknown 3:55

how are they resolved? So I understand the uh Kiowa decision uh Your Honor and obviously that Congress did not act after that decision.

Stephen G. Breyer 4:07

No, so that's why I asked my question. Property disputes are fairly common. And uh th they c you could get into s really unf bad situations where the only resolution is force. That is why we have courts. And I want to know how are they resolved? How should they be resolved if

Unknown 4:25

you can't sue the tribe? So the precedent that this Court has recognized in both the U.S. v. Alabama and uh the Minnesota case is that sometimes That will be the reality of sovereign immunity. That being said, Uh uh by way of example, the fact that States can enforce taxes against tribes have not precluded. I am not talking about the For Justice Breyer's question. Suppose the tribe owns property outside the reservation in Tulsa or New York, the State wants to condemn the land.