Pueblo of Acoma v. Padilla

Background

Frank Padilla, a roofing consultant, sued the Pueblo of Acoma, which does business as Sky City Contractors, claiming a breach of contract after supervising roof work on two projects located off the Acoma reservation. The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled the tribe was not protected by tribal sovereign immunity for that off-reservation contract dispute. Arizona courts had reached opposite results in similar cases, creating a conflict among state courts.

Reasoning

The central question was whether a tribe and its subordinate business are immune from state court lawsuits for commercial activities that occur off reservation. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for review and therefore did not decide the question. Justice White wrote a dissent saying the Court should have taken the case to resolve the conflicting state rulings and to answer the immunity question left open in an earlier, related case.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to hear the case, the disagreement among state courts stands. Contractors, businesses, and tribes that operate off reservation face uncertainty about whether they can sue or be sued in state courts. The denial is not a final ruling on the legal issue and a future Supreme Court decision could change the law.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White dissented from the denial and would have granted review to settle the split between New Mexico and Arizona authorities; Justice Kennedy did not participate in the consideration or decision.