FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 26, 2007
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
OSAGE NATION,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 03-5162
v. N. D. Oklahoma
STATE OF OKLAHOMA EX REL. (D.C. No. CV-01-516-P)
OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION;
THOMAS E. KEMP, JR., Chairman of
the Oklahoma Tax Commission;
JERRY JOHNSON, Vice-Chairman of
the Oklahoma Tax Commission; DON
KILPATRICK, Secretary-Member of
the Oklahoma Tax Commission,
Defendants - Appellants.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before O’BRIEN, EBEL, Circuit Judges, and STEWART, District Judge. **
Notwithstanding the Eleventh Amendment, the district court permitted the
Osage Nation (“the Nation” or “the Tribe”) to sue the State of Oklahoma, the
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
**
The Honorable Ted Stewart, United States District Judge for the District
of Utah, sitting by designation.
Oklahoma Tax Commission, and individual members of the Tax Commission in
their official capacities in federal court to enjoin the State’s assessment of income
tax on tribal members who are employed by the Tribe and reside in Osage
County, Oklahoma. Oklahoma’s assessment of income tax would violate federal
law only if all of Osage County is deemed to be “Indian country.” Thus, the
pivotal issue in this case is the areal extent of the Nation’s land, not Oklahoma’s
taxing policy. The Nation seeks, in effect, to assert sovereign rights in direct
opposition to the historically exercised sovereign authority of the State of
Oklahoma. While this is not, by any means, a typical tax injunction suit, it
nonetheless may proceed in federal court against the individual members of the
Tax Commission under the Ex parte Young doctrine because it seeks relief that is
prospective in nature. 1
I. BACKGROUND
In 1871, the Nation purchased a 1.5 million acre reservation (“the Osage
Indian Reservation” or “the Reservation”) in what is now north-central Oklahoma,
between the Arkansas River and the Kansas state line. On June 28, 1906,
Congress enacted the Osage Allotment Act, which allotted the entire surface of
the Reservation to members of the Tribe. See Act of June 28, 1906, ch. 3572, 34
Stat. 539. In 1907, Oklahoma became a state and the Reservation was
1
We do not reach the question of whether the disputed land is within the
jurisdiction of the Tribe or the State. Our review is limited to determining
whether the federal forum is proper.
-2-
incorporated into the State as Osage County. See Act of June 16, 1906, ch. 3335,
34 Stat. 267, § 21. Today, the Nation is still based in Osage County, which is the
largest county in Oklahoma, covering some 2,250 square miles (approximately
three percent of Oklahoma’s total land area). Osage County has a population of
over 44,000 people, mostly non-Indians.
The State of Oklahoma only recognizes trust land and allotments within
Osage County as “Indian country” under 18 U.S.C. § 1151. 2 The Nation contends
all of the land within Osage County is Indian country because the legal status of
the Reservation has never been altered by Congress. According to the Nation, the
Osage Indian Reservation exists today as it did in 1871. The State contends the
Reservation lost its legal status when it was incorporated into the State at its
statehood in 1907. Consistent with this understanding, the State has exercised
jurisdiction over all of Osage County, with the exception of trust land, since that
time. Specifically at issue in the Nation’s suit is one aspect of the State’s
sovereignty – its assessment of income tax on tribal members who are employed
by the Tribe on trust land and who reside within Osage County, but not on trust
land.
As a general matter, a state cannot tax the income of a member of an Indian
2
18 U.S.C. § 1151 defines “Indian country” to mean “(a) all land within
the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States
Government . . . , (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the
United States . . . , and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have
not been extinguished . . . .”
-3-
tribe who is employed by the tribe and lives within Indian country. McClanahan
v. Ariz. State Tax Comm’n, 411 U.S. 164, 165 (1973). A state can, however, tax
the income of a tribal member who is employed by the tribe but resides outside
Indian country. Okla. Tax Comm’n v. Chickasaw Nation, 515 U.S. 450, 463-67
(1995). Thus, whether Oklahoma’s income tax is proper depends on whether all
of the land within Osage County is Indian country or whether Indian country
includes only that land within Osage County held in trust for the Tribe by the
United States.
In 1999, a tribal member who was employed by the Tribe on trust land and
lived within the boundaries of the pre-statehood Reservation but not on trust land
protested the State’s assessment of income tax on her. The Oklahoma Tax
Commission denied the requested relief, concluding that because the tribal
member did not live in Indian country within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1151,
her income was taxable. The Commission explained “[t]he mere fact that one’s
residence is located within what was once part of an Indian tribe’s original treaty
lands, does not by such fact alone mean that one lives in ‘Indian country’. . . .”
(Appellants’ App. at 27.)
Following the Commission’s decision, the Nation filed the instant suit
against the State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 3 seeking
3
“A suit ex rel. is typically brought by the government upon the
application of a private party (called a relator) who is interested in the matter.”
B LACK ’ S L AW D ICTIONARY 603 (Bryan A. Garner, ed., 7th ed. 1999). Where, as
-4-
declaratory and injunctive relief. The Nation sought a declaratory judgment: “(1)
that the Nation’s reservation (comprising all of Osage County, Oklahoma) is and
remains Indian country of the Nation; and (2) that the Nation’s members who are
employed by the Nation and reside within the geographical boundaries of the
Nation’s reservation are not . . . required to pay taxes to [the] State . . . on the
income earned . . . from their tribal employment.” (Id. at 11.) The Nation also
sought a permanent injunction “restraining and prohibiting Defendant[s] . . . from
levying or collecting Oklahoma state income taxes upon the income of the
Nation’s members who are employed by the Nation and reside within the
geographical boundaries of the Nation’s reservation.” (Id.) The Nation asserted
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1362.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the Nation’s suit was barred by the Eleventh
Amendment. 4 The Nation then filed an amended complaint, adding the individual
(continued)
here, the designation is used as to a defendant, we afford it no significance. Thus,
we treat both Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Tax Commission as defendants.
4
The defendants also claimed the Nation’s suit was barred by the Tax
Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, which provides: “The district courts shall not
enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under
State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of
such State.” However, this Act does not bar suits brought by Indian tribes
seeking to enjoin the enforcement of state tax law. See Moe v. Confederated
Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, 425 U.S. 463, 474-75
(1976).
-5-
members of the Tax Commission as defendants. All of the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint, raising the same arguments as in the
original motion to dismiss. The court denied the defendants’ motion, relying on
our decision in Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri v. Pierce, 213 F.3d 566, 571-73
(10th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1144 (2001). The court explained “the
Tenth Circuit [in Sac & Fox] reasoned that federal courts have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1362 to consider the merits of [a] Kansas fuel tax [assessed against
retail stores located on tribal land]. Consistent with the Tenth Circuit, this court
asserts jurisdiction under § 1362 and finds . . . the Eleventh Amendment . . . [does
not] bar this suit.” (Id. at 60.) Under the collateral order doctrine, the defendants
appeal from that portion of the court’s order relating to the Eleventh Amendment.
Garramone v. Romo, 94 F.3d 1446, 1452 (10th Cir. 1996) (“A district court’s
denial of Eleventh Amendment immunity . . . is immediately appealable as a final
judgment under the collateral order doctrine.”).
II. DISCUSSION
A. The Eleventh Amendment
The Eleventh Amendment provides: “The Judicial power of the United
States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or
prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by
Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” The Supreme Court has interpreted
this amendment to extend beyond its plain language to bar suits in federal court
-6-
against a state by its own citizens, Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 21 (1890), or
by a foreign sovereign, Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U.S. 313, 330
(1934). The Court has also interpreted the Eleventh Amendment to bar suits
against a state by Indian tribes because tribes are analogous to foreign sovereigns.
Blatchford v. Native Vill. of Noatak & Circle Vill., 501 U.S. 775, 782 (1991).
The Supreme Court has recognized three exceptions to a state’s sovereign
immunity. J.B. ex rel. Hart v. Valdez, 186 F.3d 1280, 1285-86 (10th Cir. 1999).
First, a party may sue a state in federal court notwithstanding the Eleventh
Amendment if the state consents to suit. Id. at 1286. Second, a party may sue a
state if Congress has abrogated the state’s sovereign immunity in a clear and
unequivocal manner pursuant to a valid exercise of its power. Seminole Tribe of
Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 55 (1996). 5 Finally, under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S.
123 (1908), a party may sue individual state officers in federal court in their
official capacity for prospective injunctive relief, so long as the suit does not fall
within the narrow exception enunciated in Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho,
5
In Seminole Tribe, the Court held the Enforcement Clause (§ 5) of the
Fourteenth Amendment is the only provision of the Constitution that empowers
Congress to abrogate a state’s immunity from suit. 517 U.S. at 59, 65, 72 n.15;
see also Ellis v. Univ. of Kan. Med. Ctr., 163 F.3d 1186, 1195-96 (10th Cir.
1998). The Court subsequently held that Congress’ power under the Enforcement
Clause extends only to the enactment of “appropriate” corrective or preventative
legislation to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. See City of
Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 518-20 (1997) (holding Congress’ enactment of
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 exceeded its enforcement power
under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment).
-7-
521 U.S. 261 (1997). See Hill v. Kemp, 478 F.3d 1236, 1255-56 (10th Cir. 2007).
Instead of relying on one of these three exceptions, the district court relied on 28
U.S.C. § 1362 and Sac & Fox. The defendants contend this was error. “We
review de novo a state’s claim that a suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.”
Powder River Basin Res. Council v. Babbitt, 54 F.3d 1477, 1483 (10th Cir. 1995).
B. 28 U.S.C. § 1362
Section 1362 provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions, brought by any Indian tribe . . . wherein the matter
in controversy arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States.” In Blatchford, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that § 1362
constitutes a Congressional abrogation of Eleventh Amendment immunity because
it “does not reflect an unmistakably clear intent to abrogate immunity, made plain
in the language of the statute.” 501 U.S. at 786 (quotations omitted). The Court
explained “[t]he fact that Congress grants jurisdiction to hear a claim does not
suffice to show Congress has abrogated all defenses to that claim. The issues are
wholly distinct.” Id. at 786 n.4. The district court erred to the extent it conflated
the distinct concepts of subject matter jurisdiction and sovereign immunity.
In Sac & Fox, the case relied upon by the district court, we addressed
whether the Eleventh Amendment barred suit in federal court by three Indian
tribes to enjoin the State of Kansas from collecting tax on motor fuel distributed
-8-
to retail gas stations located on Indian lands within the State. 6 213 F.3d at 569.
The district court had granted a permanent injunction prohibiting the State from
collecting the tax. On appeal, the State contended the district court lacked
jurisdiction because the tribes’ suit was barred by the doctrine of sovereign
immunity and the tribes lacked standing. We “reject[ed] the State’s jurisdictional
contentions, and conclude[d] the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over
this cause.” Id. at 571.
In reaching this result, we looked closely at Moe v. Confederated Salish &
Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, 425 U.S. 463 (1976). In Moe, the
Supreme Court read 28 U.S.C. § 1362 to imply that a tribe’s access to federal
court to litigate federal question cases would be, at least in some respects (e.g.,
for the purpose of obtaining injunctive relief from state taxation), as broad as that
of the United States suing as the tribe’s trustee. 425 U.S. at 472-73. However, as
the Court made clear in Blatchford, “Moe did not purport to be saying that § 1362
equated tribal access [to federal courts] with the United States’ access generally,
but only ‘at least in some respects’ or ‘in certain respects.’” 501 U.S. at 784
(citations omitted). 7 In Sac & Fox, we followed Moe and concluded the tribes’
6
Notably, the State of Kansas was not named as a defendant in Sac & Fox.
The only defendant was Karla Pierce, Secretary of the Kansas Department of
Revenue.
7
In Blatchford, the Supreme Court stated that Moe involved only a
question of jurisdiction, not of sovereign immunity: “[In Moe,] [s]ince Montana
had not objected in this Court on sovereign immunity grounds, its immunity had
-9-
suit to enjoin enforcement of the Kansas motor fuel tax was one of those “certain
respects.” 213 F.3d at 572-73. 8 We explained “Moe leads us to conclude that we
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1362 to reach the merits of this case. Surely
if an Indian tribe may maintain suit on its own behalf in federal court to enjoin
collection of a state’s cigarette sales tax, it may maintain a similar suit on its own
behalf to enjoin collection of a state’s motor fuel distribution tax.” Id. at 572.
Sac & Fox does not speak to the real issue in this case, which is not
whether the State’s income tax is proper. While the Nation claims to be seeking
(continued)
been waived and was not at issue.” Blatchford at 785 n.3; see also Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Hardin, 223 F.3d 1041, 1049 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000)
(“[N]or do we believe that Moe addressed the Eleventh Amendment issue.”).
Thus, Moe may stand only for the limited proposition that, where a state has
waived its sovereign immunity, the Tax Injunction Act does not bar a tribe’s suit
against the state in federal court because jurisdiction is conferred under § 1362.
8
Our holding in Sac & Fox must not be read too broadly or taken out of
context -- certainly there was no intent to ignore other unmistakably clear
language from Blatchford:
Respondents now urge . . . a vast expansion upon Moe. Section
1341, which Moe held § 1362 to eliminate in its application to tribal
suits, was merely a limitation that Congress itself had created --
committing state tax-injunction suits to state courts as a matter of
comity. Absent that statute, state taxes could constitutionally be
enjoined. The obstacle to suit in the present case, by contrast, is a
creation not of Congress but of the Constitution [Eleventh
Amendment immunity]. A willingness to eliminate the former in no
way bespeaks a willingness to eliminate the latter, especially when
limitation to “certain respects” has explicitly been announced.
501 U.S. at 784-85 (citation omitted).
-10-
only injunctive relief from state taxation, the essence of this case is whether the
Nation or the State of Oklahoma is the supreme sovereign with respect to Osage
County or whether some form of dual sovereignty may apply. The Nation
contends all of the land within Osage County is part of the Osage Indian
Reservation and thus, Indian country. If the Nation is correct, the State cannot
collect income tax from any tribal members employed by the Tribe living in
Osage County. 9 The State contends the non-trust land in Osage County is not
Indian country and instead is under the jurisdiction of the State. If the State is
correct, the income tax is proper. Whether the non-trust portions of Osage
County are Indian country is a question of jurisdiction, not of tax, and the relief
the Nation seeks is to divest Oklahoma of sovereign rights, not simply to enjoin a
tax. 10 Because this suit is not a mere tax injunction suit, Sac & Fox is not
controlling. Rather, we must look to the principle announced in Blatchford – that
28 U.S.C. § 1362 does not override the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.
9
A ruling in favor of the Nation on the merits could affect more than the
State’s ability to collect income tax. The Nation might be able to foreclose
Oklahoma from exercising sovereignty over Osage County in myriad other ways.
10
In its amended complaint, the Nation alleges: “Defendants’ assertions
and actions . . . infringe upon the Nation’s sovreignty [sic] and rights to self-
government and self-determination, and impose adverse and unlawful burdens on
the Nation and its members.” (Appellants’ App. at 22.) In its brief, the Nation
states it “seeks a judicial acknowledgment of a position the Nation has been
asserting for years and that the State has refused to recognize – that the legal
status of the Osage Reservation remains in existence as the Indian country of the
Nation, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1151(a).” (Appellee’s Br. at 3).
-11-
The Nation’s suit can only proceed in federal court if it falls within one of the
three recognized exceptions to sovereign immunity.
The first two exceptions are easily disposed of as neither party contends the
State waived its sovereign immunity or that Congress has abrogated sovereign
immunity in this context. Thus, the district court erred in concluding the Nation’s
suit could proceed against the State and the Tax Commission in federal court.
But that does not end the matter as to the individual defendants sued in their
official capacities as we must consider whether the suit can proceed against them
under the Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity. 11
C. Ex parte Young
“In Ex parte Young, the Court held that the Eleventh Amendment generally
will not operate to bar suits so long as they (i) seek only declaratory and
injunctive relief rather than monetary damages for alleged violations of federal
law, and (ii) are aimed against state officers acting in their official capacities,
rather than against the State itself.” Hill, 478 F.3d at 1255-56. 12 The Young
11
The Nation contends we should not consider whether the Ex parte Young
exception applies because the defendants did not make this argument in the
district court. Though the Eleventh Amendment is not jurisdictional in the
traditional sense, it does have jurisdictional elements and thus we could consider
this argument even if were raised for the first time on appeal. See Sutton v. Utah
State Sch. for the Deaf & Blind, 173 F.3d 1226, 1231 (10th Cir. 1999). We note
both parties have briefed the issue, although the Nation did so reluctantly.
12
Although the Nation added the individual Tax Commissioners as
defendants in its amended complaint, it retained the State of Oklahoma and its
Tax Commission. In theory, we could remand this case for dismissal of the State
-12-
doctrine is premised on the fiction that a suit against state officers seeking only
prospective injunctive relief is not an action against the state and is therefore not
subject to the sovereign immunity bar. Id. at 1256. The doctrine strikes a
delicate balance by ensuring on the one hand that states enjoy the sovereign
immunity preserved for them by the Eleventh Amendment while, on the other
hand, “giving recognition to the need to prevent violations of federal law.” Coeur
d’Alene, 521 U.S. at 269.
In Coeur d’Alene, the Court held the Eleventh Amendment barred suit by
an Indian tribe against state officials, where the suit sought a declaration of the
tribe’s entitlement to the exclusive use, occupancy, and right to quiet enjoyment
of submerged lands claimed by the State of Idaho. Id. at 265, 282 (Kennedy, J.). 13
The Court justified its rejection of Young on the basis that the tribe’s suit was
equivalent to a quiet title action and the relief sought would erase the state’s
regulatory authority over the disputed land. Id. at 282. The Court indicated its
concerns were magnified because the land in question was submerged and states
(continued)
and the Tax Commission as the Young doctrine only applies if the suit is asserted
against state officers in their official capacity. For purposes of judicial
efficiency, we will consider whether this suit could proceed under Ex parte
Young, assuming the State and the Tax Commission were dismissed.
13
While Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Coeur d’Alene, he
commanded a majority only with respect to certain sections. See Hill, 478 F.3d at
1257 (discussing the “multiple and fractured opinions” involved in Coeur
d’Alene). We cite only to sections that commanded a majority.
-13-
have historically had especially strong sovereign interests in navigable waters and
the lands underlying them. See id. at 283-84. The Court explained:
[T]he declaratory and injunctive relief the Tribe seeks is close to the
functional equivalent of quiet title in that substantially all benefits of
ownership and control would shift from the State to the Tribe. This
is especially troubling when coupled with the far-reaching and
invasive relief the Tribe seeks, relief with consequences going well
beyond the typical stakes in a real property quiet title action. The
suit seeks, in effect, a determination that the lands in question are not
even within the regulatory jurisdiction of the State. The requested
injunctive relief would bar the State’s principal officers from
exercising their governmental powers and authority over the disputed
lands and waters. The suit would diminish, even extinguish, the
State’s control over a vast reach of lands and waters long deemed by
the State to be an integral part of its territory. To pass this off as a
judgment causing little or no offense to Idaho’s sovereign authority
and its standing in the Union would be to ignore the realities of the
relief the Tribe demands.
Id. at 282. Justice O’Connor wrote a separate concurrence, questioning the
“principal opinion[’s] . . . central conclusion: that a case-by-case balancing
approach is appropriate where a plaintiff invokes the Young exception to the
Eleventh Amendment’s jurisdictional bar, even when a complaint alleges a
violation of federal law and clearly seeks prospective relief.” Id. at 293-94
(O’Connor, J., concurring). As we described in Hill, Justice O’Connor’s
concurrence “seemed to suggest that we must assess whether a claim seeks relief
effectively equivalent to a retrospective judgment regardless of how it is formally
pled or denominated.” 478 F.3d at 1258.
In Verizon Maryland, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Maryland,
-14-
decided five years after Coeur d’Alene, the Court made clear it was Justice
O’Connor’s approach in Coeur d’Alene that controlled. 535 U.S. 635, 645
(2002). The Court held “[i]n determining whether the doctrine of Ex parte Young
avoids an Eleventh Amendment bar to suit, a court need only conduct a
straightforward inquiry into whether the complaint alleges an ongoing violation of
federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective.” Id.
(quotations and internal alterations omitted). 14
It is not clear what is left of Coeur d’Alene following Verizon Maryland.
In Western Mohegan Tribe and Nation v. Orange County, decided post-Verizon
Maryland, the Second Circuit applied the Coeur d’Alene exception to the
Young doctrine to bar a tribe’s suit against the State of New York and its
Governor, claiming the state was wrongly in possession of land in ten New York
counties that belonged to the tribe. 395 F.3d 18, 19 (2d Cir. 2004). The lands at
issue included state parks, state wildlife management areas, state-managed lakes
and wetlands, state historic sites, and the Empire State Plaza, where the state
14
Justice Kennedy concurred in the judgment in Verizon Maryland for
purposes of distinguishing Coeur d’Alene. He explained: “[Verizon Maryland] is
unlike [Coeur d’Alene], where the plaintiffs tried to use Ex parte Young to divest
a State of sovereignty over territory within its boundaries. In such a case, a
‘straightforward inquiry,’ which the Court endorses here . . . proves more
complex . . . . In my view, our Ex parte Young jurisprudence requires careful
consideration of the sovereign interests of the State as well as the obligations of
state officials to respect the supremacy of federal law.” 535 U.S. at 648-49
(Kennedy, J., concurring). His was a voice in the wilderness. Justice O’Connor
took no part in the consideration or decision of Verizon Maryland. Id. at 648.
-15-
capitol is located. The court stated: “While, in other contexts, we have declined
to extend Coeur d’Alene’s holding we have not had occasion to consider a case
raising the core issues of land, state regulatory authority, and sovereignty
expressly examined by the Coeur d’Alene Court.” Id. at 23 (citations omitted).
The court concluded the tribe’s suit did not fall within the Young exception
because the relief sought by the tribe was analogous to the relief sought in Coeur
d’Alene: “To the extent that the complaint alleges that there has never been a
lawful extinguishment of the Tribe’s Indian title, it seeks a declaration from this
court that New York’s exercise of fee title remains ‘subject to’ the Tribe’s rights
. . . thus, the relief requested by the Tribe is, as much as that sought in Coeur
d’Alene, the functional equivalent of quiet the Tribe’s claim to title in the New
York counties named in the complaint.” Id. (citation omitted).
This case is different from W. Mohegan as it does not involve an actual title
dispute. Sovereignty is the issue here, not ownership of land. Our case law
instructs us not to consider state sovereignty in determining whether the Young
doctrine is applicable:
[T]he courts of appeals need not (and should not) linger over the
question whether “special” or other sorts of sovereign interests are at
stake before analyzing the nature of the relief sought . . . . Instead,
the Supreme Court . . . instructed [in Verizon Maryland] that we are
to proceed immediately in every case to the “straightforward [or so
one might hope] inquiry” whether the relief requested is “properly”
characterized as prospective or is indeed the functional equivalent of
impermissible retrospective relief . . . . [T]he sole question for us
becomes whether the relief sought by [the plaintiff] is prospective,
-16-
not just in how it is captioned but also in its substance.
Hill, 478 F.3d at 1259. We are certainly sympathetic to the State’s argument and
we reject the Nation’s characterization of this suit as “nothing more than a mere
tax case.” (Appellee’s Br. at 28.) Unlike Hill, this suit “calls to mind the sort of
literal land grab effort made by the plaintiffs in Coeur d’Alene,” id. at 1260, even
though it does not involve an actual title dispute. Nonetheless, we are compelled
to follow Hill. We may consider only whether the relief sought by the Nation is
prospective in caption and substance, and we conclude it is. The relief sought
may have far-reaching implications on Oklahoma’s sovereignty, but it nonetheless
falls within the Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity and the suit
can proceed against the individual members of the Tax Commission in federal
court.
We REVERSE the district court’s decision to allow the Nation’s suit to
proceed against the State of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Tax Commission and
remand for dismissal of those defendants. As to the individual defendants, the
decision of the district court is AFFIRMED for the stated reasons herein.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Terrence L. O’Brien
Circuit Judge
-17-