Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren

Prior decision in County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation, 502 U.S. 251, does not foreclose tribal sovereign immunity defenses for in rem actions as traditionally believed.

Petitioner is a Native American tribe residing in Washington State. In 2013, the tribe purchased a tract of land hoping that the federal government would add that land to the existing reservation. Petitioner requested a survey revealing a boundary fence improperly cutting through the land. Petitioners informed the neighboring landowners, Respondents, that they would be moving the fence. Respondents then filed a quiet title action in Washington state court under the real property theories of adverse possession and mutual acquiescence. Petitioner asserted a sovereign immunity defense, which the Washington Supreme Court rejected. That rejection relied, in part, on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation, 502 U.S. 251, interpreting that decision to establish that tribal sovereign immunity claims do not apply to in rem actions.  Disagreeing with the Washington Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court clarified that “Yakima did not address the scope of tribal sovereign immunity.” Rather, it concerned a straightforward application of statutory interpretation. At argument, Respondents urged the Court to affirm the lower court’s judgment on a common law ground distinct from the Yakima reasoning. The majority of the Court believed that the Washington Supreme Court should decide the common-law argument. VACATED and REMANDED.