Upper Skagit Tribe v. Lundgren
Headline: Court says a prior case only dealt with tax law, refuses to decide whether a tribe can be sued over land it bought in the State, and sends the title dispute back to Washington’s high court.
Holding: The Court held that Yakima addressed only statutory tax issues, not tribal sovereign immunity, so it vacated the Washington court’s judgment and sent the property dispute back for further consideration.
- Prevents using Yakima to deny tribal sovereign immunity in property suits.
- Leaves unresolved whether tribes can be sued over land they buy in a State.
- Sends case back to Washington’s highest court for further decision.
Summary
Background
The Upper Skagit Indian Tribe bought about 40 acres in 2013 and hired a survey that suggested roughly one acre lay on the other side of a long boundary fence with neighbors Sharline and Ray Lundgren. The Lundgrens sued in state court to quiet title (a lawsuit to decide who owns the land), claiming they had used and treated the disputed acre as theirs for years. The Tribe asserted sovereign immunity, saying it could not be sued in that action.
Reasoning
The Court considered whether an earlier decision, County of Yakima, meant tribes could not invoke sovereign immunity in in rem property suits. The Court said Yakima dealt only with how an old federal statute about Indian land affected state property taxes, not with the scope of tribal immunity. Because the alternative argument—an old common-law rule that a sovereign who owns land in another territory may be treated like a private owner—was raised late, the Court declined to decide it and instead vacated the Washington Supreme Court’s judgment and sent the case back for further consideration.
Real world impact
The ruling clarifies that Yakima cannot be used to deny tribal immunity in this way, but it does not resolve whether tribes can be sued over land they buy in a State. Owners, tribes, and state courts will still face uncertainty until the Washington court or another case addresses the common-law property exception. This is not a final decision on who owns the land.
Dissents or concurrances
The Chief Justice concurred, urging practical ways to resolve such disputes. Justice Thomas dissented, arguing the immovable-property exception is settled and should have been decided now.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?