Intent Matters: Assessing Sovereign Immunity for Tribal Entities

By Wong, Gregory J. | Washington Law Review, February 2007 | Go to article overview

Intent Matters: Assessing Sovereign Immunity for Tribal Entities


Wong, Gregory J., Washington Law Review


Abstract: Indian tribes create corporations and agencies, such as casinos and economic development organizations, to further tribal goals. When such an entity is sued, the courts must determine whether the entity shares in the tribe's inherent sovereign immunity. Like tribes, the federal and state governments also create corporations and agencies to further their governmental goals. To determine whether such a federal entity shares in the federal government's sovereign immunity, the courts ask if Congress intended to grant the entity immunity from suit. For state entities, courts ask if the state government intended to extend its sovereign immunity to the entity by examining how state law characterizes the entity. The courts have designed a variety of tests to determine when a tribal entity shares in a tribe's sovereign immunity but none of these explicitly examine the intent of the tribe. This Comment argues that courts err if they do not examine a tribe's intent to extend its sovereign immunity to a tribal entity when analyzing the entity's amenability to suit. The courts defer to federal and state intent due to their status as sovereigns. Tribes are similarly sovereign governments. Federal, state, and tribal sovereign immunity all derive from the same source. Although Congress has the power to change or abrogate tribal sovereign immunity, thus far Congress has not chosen to alter the extent to which tribal entities may benefit from a tribal government's immunity from suit.

Immunity from suit is an inherent aspect of sovereignty rooted in common law.1 Courts have abandoned the historical notion that governments possess immunity from suit because the "king can do no wrong" and today justify sovereign immunity as a means to both protect the treasury and prevent the state apparatus from being turned against itself.2 Sovereign immunity extends beyond the sovereign in the strictest sense to include government corporations and agencies that operate as an arm of the sovereign.3 However, not every entity created by a sovereign is entitled to the protections of sovereign immunity.4

Because sovereign immunity defines whether or not a court has jurisdiction over a suit,5 it is the duty of the courts to determine whether sovereign immunity has been extended to an entity created by a sovereign.6 When considering the extension of federal or state sovereign immunity, courts look to whether the government creating the entity intended the entity to share in the sovereign's immunity from suit.7 In other words, courts give deference to whether the sovereign intended to extend its immunity to an entity.8 To determine the sovereign's intent, courts look to how the entity is characterized by the sovereign's law.9 If there is no explicit language in the law that either preserves or waives sovereign immunity for the governmental entity, courts will analyze various factors to determine legislative intent.10

The U.S. Supreme Court has not established a test to determine when tribal agencies and corporations share in the tribe's sovereign immunity." Nevertheless, state and lower federal courts have developed a variety of tests for this analysis.12 Yet, unlike the tests employed in the context of federal and state sovereign immunity, none of the tests in the tribal context consider the tribe's intent in creating the entity.13 Courts ignore the tribe's intent, an important factor in the federal and state contexts, and primarily assess the entity's relationship to the tribal government.14

This Comment argues that tribal intent should be a factor in determining whether sovereign immunity extends to tribal entities. Part I of this Comment discusses the nature of federal, state, and tribal sovereign immunity, concluding that they all spring from the same source. Part II examines the courts' inability to abrogate tribal sovereign immunity. Part III outlines how courts defer to the intent of federal and state governments when determining whether a governmental entity shares in the sovereign's immunity from suit. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Intent Matters: Assessing Sovereign Immunity for Tribal Entities
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.