12-3723
Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Seneca County, New York
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
_______________
August Term, 2013
(Argued: January 7, 2014 Decided: July 31, 2014)
Docket No. 12‐3723
_______________
CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK,
Plaintiff ‐ Appellee,
—v.—
SENECA COUNTY, NEW YORK,
Defendant ‐ Appellant.
_______________
B e f o r e:
KATZMANN, Chief Judge, JACOBS and CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
_______________
Appeal from a district court order preliminarily enjoining Seneca County
from foreclosing upon certain parcels of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York’s
real property to satisfy unpaid ad valorem property taxes. We conclude, in light of
recent Supreme Court guidance, that tribal sovereign immunity from suit bars the
County’s proceedings against the Nation and therefore AFFIRM the order of the
district court.
_______________
PHILIP G. SPELLANE (Daniel J. Moore, James P. Nonkes, on the brief),
Harris Beach PLLC, Pittsford, N.Y., for Defendant‐Appellant.
DAVID W. DEBRUIN, Jenner & Block LLP, New York, N.Y. (Joshua M.
Segal, Jenner & Block LLP, New York, N.Y., Daniel French, Lee
Alcott, French‐Alcott, PLLC, Syracuse, N.Y., on the brief), for
Plaintiff‐Appellee.
Andrew D. Bing, Deputy Solicitor General, Barbara D. Underwood,
Solicitor General, Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, for
amicus curiae the State of New York.
Elizabeth Ann Peterson, William B. Lazarus, Steven E. Miskinis,
Attorneys, Robert G. Dreher, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, United States Department of Justice, Environment
and National Resources Division, for amicus curiae the United
States.
_______________
PER CURIAM:
We are called upon to review an order of the United States District Court
for the Western District of New York (Charles J. Siragusa, District Judge), which
preliminarily enjoined defendant‐appellant Seneca County, New York from
2
foreclosing upon certain real property owned by plaintiff‐appellee the Cayuga
Indian Nation of New York (“Cayuga Nation”).
Our standard of review of a district court’s decision to grant or deny a
preliminary injunction is well established, as are the general requirements placed
upon a party seeking a preliminary injunction. See Oneida Nation of N.Y. v. Cuomo,
645 F.3d 154, 164 (2d Cir. 2011). The only issue in dispute in this appeal is
whether the district court properly determined that the Cayuga Nation was likely
to succeed on the merits. We review the legal conclusions underlying the district
court’s decision de novo and the district court’s factual determinations for clear
error. See id.
Seneca County initiated foreclosure proceedings against certain of the
Cayuga Nation’s real property in an attempt to recover uncollected ad valorem
property taxes. After invoking the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity and our
vacated decision in Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Madison County, 605 F.3d 149
(2d Cir. 2010), vacated, 131 S. Ct. 704 (2011), the district court preliminarily
enjoined the County’s foreclosure proceedings. Seneca County timely appealed
the district court’s order, contending that we should limit the doctrine of tribal
3
immunity from suit so as to permit states to bring foreclosure suits to recover
uncollected taxes levied against the property of Indian tribes.
Seneca County acknowledges that our opinion in Madison County squarely
addressed the question presented here and held that tribal sovereign immunity
from suit bars these foreclosure actions, see 605 F.3d at 156–60, but the County
emphasizes that the Supreme Court’s decision to vacate our opinion leaves this
panel free from otherwise binding precedent and urges us to conclude that
Madison County misconstrued Supreme Court precedent regarding the doctrine of
tribal sovereign immunity. The State of New York, appearing as amicus curiae,
further contends that the vacatur of our prior opinion casts substantial doubt on
the correctness of the reasoning of Madison County.
We need not attempt to discern the implied message communicated by the
vacatur of our prior opinion because the Supreme Court has since issued further
guidance regarding both the continuing vitality of the doctrine of tribal sovereign
immunity from suit and the propriety of drawing distinctions that might
constrain the broad sweep of that immunity in the absence of express action by
Congress. In Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S. Ct. 2024 (2014), the
4
Supreme Court once again held that tribes retain, as “‘a necessary corollary to
Indian sovereignty and self‐governance,’” a common‐law immunity from suit. Id.
at 2030 (quoting Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. World Eng’g,
P.C., 476 U.S. 877, 890 (1986)). Under this “settled law,” id. at 2030–31 (quoting
Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 756 (1998)), courts must
“dismiss[] any suit against a tribe absent congressional authorization (or a
waiver),” id. at 2031. This treatment of tribal sovereign immunity from suit is an
avowedly “broad principle,” id. at 2031, and the Supreme Court (like this Court)
has “thought it improper suddenly to start carving out exceptions” to that
immunity, opting instead to “defer” to the plenary power of Congress to define
and otherwise abrogate tribal sovereign immunity from suit, id. (quoting Kiowa,
523 U.S. at 758).
Therefore we decline, as has the Supreme Court, to read a “commercial
activity” exception into the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity from suit, see id.;
Kiowa, 523 U.S. at 758, and we decline to draw the novel distinctions—such as a
distinction between in rem and in personam proceedings—that Seneca County has
urged us to adopt, see Bay Mills, 134 S. Ct. at 2031; see also The Siren, 74 U.S. 152,
5
154 (1868) (“[T]here is no distinction between suits against the government
directly, and suits against its property.”).
Notwithstanding Seneca County and the State of New York’s vigorous
argument, we read no implied abrogation of tribal sovereign immunity from suit
into City of Sherrill, N.Y. v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197 (2005), or
County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, 502 U.S.
251 (1992). Such implied abrogation would be clearly at odds with the Supreme
Court’s solicitous treatment of the common‐law tribal immunity from suit—as
opposed to immunity from other, largely prescriptive, powers of the states such
as the levying of taxes. See Madison County, 605 F.3d at 156–59. And implied
abrogation would also run counter to the principle that we must “‘defer’ to
Congress about whether to abrogate tribal [sovereign] immunity,” Bay Mills, 134
S. Ct. at 2031 (quoting Kiowa, 523 U.S. at 758).
In short, in the absence of a waiver of immunity by the tribe, “[u]nless
Congress has authorized [the] suit, . . . precedents demand,” id. at 2032, that we
6
affirm the district court’s injunction of the County’s foreclosure proceedings
against the Cayuga Nation’s property.1
Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.
1 Seneca County also contends that the Cayuga Nation has either waived
sovereign immunity or should be otherwise estopped from asserting the defense based
on the Nation’s arguments before the New York Court of Appeals in Cayuga Indian
Nation of New York v. Gould, 930 N.E.2d 233 (N.Y. 2010). See Br. of Defendant‐Appellant at
30–32. “[T]o relinquish its immunity, a tribe’s waiver must be ‘clear,’” C & L Enters., Inc.
v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 532 U.S. 411, 418 (2001) (quoting Okla. Tax
Commʹn v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505, 509 (1991)), and thus it
“’cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed,’” Santa Clara Pueblo v.
Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58 (1978) (quoting United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 (1976)).
None of the statements cited by the County represents an unequivocal expression by the
Cayuga Nation that it has waived its immunity from suit with respect to the parcels in
question.
7