Posted on 12/07/2006 12:38:09 PM PST by truth49
SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) — Commercial activities of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation are protected from lawsuits under tribal sovereign immunity, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The ruling reverses a court of appeals decision in a racial discrimination lawsuit filed by a non-Indian against two corporations of the Eastern Washington tribe and a supervisor.
The opinion, written by Justice Richard B. Sanders, found that state laws echo federal laws granting the Colvilles' tribal corporations sovereign immunity unless there is an express waiver by the tribe or immunity is abrogated by Congress.
Tribal sovereign immunity protects tribes from suits involving both governmental and commercial activities conducted on or off a reservation. The Colvilles' reservation covers about 1.4 million acres north of the Columbia River in Okanogan and Ferry counties.
The lawsuit was brought by Christopher Wright, a non-Indian hired by the Colville Tribal Services Corp. in July 2002 as a pipe layer and equipment operator. Wright worked off-reservation on a project to construct a water line for a U.S. Navy housing development in Oak Harbor.
Wright resigned in February 2003. He sued the Colville Tribal Enterprise Corp., its wholly owned subsidiary CTSC, and his former supervisor, Don Braman, alleging race discrimination, racial harassment, hostile work environment, negligent supervision, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
The Island County Superior Court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction. That was reversed by the state Court of Appeals, which found CTEC and CTSC were not protected by tribal sovereign immunity.
The CTEC owns and manages 14 business enterprises on behalf of the tribe, including three casinos, sawmills and logging companies, stores and a credit union.
Sanders opinion was endorsed by Chief Justice Gerry L. Alexander and Justices Susan Owens and Bobbe J. Bridge. Justices Barbara A. Madsen and Mary E. Fairhurst concurred in a separate opinion.
A dissent written by Justice Charles Johnson contends the case should be sent back to a trial court to determine facts about whether the corporations are tribal entities protected by sovereign immunity. Justices Tom Chambers and James M. Johnson signed the dissent.
But Sanders wrote their dissent fails to identify any disputed facts, so "in the absence of an actual factual dispute, this is a question of law."
Under Washington law, tribal sovereign immunity protects tribal governmental corporations.
___
The case is Wright v. Colville Tribal Enter. Corp, No. 77558-3.
___
On the Net:
Text: http://www.courts.wa.gov
Conclusion, don't do business with Tribal organizations if you have anything to lose in the deal.
I did some work in Bonner's Ferry, Idaho. My client asked in passing where I was staying (a bed and breakfast outside of town). He mentioned that the big hotel/casino (Indian) in town does not have to be inspected or anything! Although he thought "they probably did a pretty good job". (Still glad I stayed at the B&B!).
Sweet! This is where I take it easy!!!
I've seen a few instances where it was a free pass for non civil-law incidents
This ruling says that tribal governments have the same immunity from lawsuits claimed by any city or county government in the State of Washington.
Yep...because of all of those treaties that the U.S. government signed with them over the past 200+ years, backed by copious volumes of congressional legislation that recognizes the government's special "trust" relationship with the tribes that it inherited from the British in 1783.
The Indians were here first and have a proper claim to all the land. Perhaps we should give it all back or maybe stop finding fault with there valid claims.
The fallacy of 'sovereign immunity' as government applies it is that it's the People who are sovereign, not the governments.
"This ruling says that tribal governments have the same immunity from lawsuits claimed by any city or county government in the State of Washington."
This ruling applies to commercial activity. Cities, Counties nor the State has immunity for commercial activities.
I would agree in theory but Washington State has statute law granting immunity to government entities. The State Supreme court merely recognized that the legislature passed such a law and I don't believe that there is a good argument based on our State Constitution that would make such a law improper or unconstitutional.
The opinion, written by Justice Richard B. Sanders, found that state laws echo federal laws granting the Colvilles' tribal corporations sovereign immunity unless there is an express waiver by the tribe or immunity is abrogated by Congress.
Instead of obeying the U.S. Constitution, Islamic "tribes" in
the U.S. could use this to defend their right to Sharia law.
Read this article about Sound transit and a somewhat similar decision.
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0118/news-fefer.php
I hope you're kidding. But the way things are sliding down hill, I think you are most serious.
Now we're looking at a very possible scenario where the special privledged battle for equal rights to discriminate against anything that smells of a productive majority.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.