sovereign immunity in Washington

2019The Tribe’s constitution gives the tribal council the exclusive authority to waive sovereign immunity and requires that any waiver be express and unambiguous.26 Consistent with its constitution, the Tribe’s Judiciary Act states that “all Tribal agencies shall be immune from suit for any acts or omissions done during the performance of Tribal duties” and gives the tribal council exclusive authority to waive immunity for any of these bodies.27 The STTGA, which created the Commission, includes one “limited, irrevocable waiver of sovereign immunity” for disputes between patrons and casino staff.28

2007In Santa Clara Pueblo , for example, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the affirmative defense of tribal sovereign immunity under federal law and held that Congress did not waive the tribes’ sovereign immunity from suit when it enacted the ICRA. 436 U.S. at 59 .

2017See, e.g., Miner Elec., Inc. v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation, 505 F.3d 1007, 1009 (lOth Cir. 2007) ("'Tribal sovereign immunity is a matter of subject matter jurisdiction.'" (quoting E.

2017See, e.g., Miner Elec., Inc. v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation, 505 F.3d 1007, 1009 (10th Cir. 2007) (“‘Tribal sovereign immunity is a matter of subject matter jurisdiction.’ ’’ (quoting E.F.W. v. St.

2017Ed. 894 (1940))); see also Anderson, 130 Wn.2d at 876 (describing tribal sovereign immunity under the "personal jurisdiction" section). 2 Though personal jurisdiction does not 2 Sovereign immunity has been variously characterized as a matter of subject matter jurisdiction, and as a matter of personal jurisdiction.

2017Ed. 894 (1940))); see also Anderson, 130 Wn.2d at 876 (describing tribal sovereign immunity under the "personal jurisdiction" section). 2 Though personal jurisdiction does not 2 Sovereign immunity has been variously characterized as a matter of subject matter jurisdiction, and as a matter of personal jurisdiction.

2015The statute at issue in this case, in contrast, contains no such limiting language. 9               Segura v. Cabrera, No. 90088-4 (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurring in Result) damages from the government, the question was actually narrower: "because the Privacy Act waives the Federal Government's sovereign immunity, the question we must address is whether it is plausible to read the statute, as the Government does, to authorize only damages for economic loss." Cooper, 132 S. Ct. at 1453 (emphasis added).

2015But because the Privacy Act of 1974 applied to damages from the government, the question was actually narrower: “Because the Privacy Act waives the Federal Government’s sovereign immunity, the question we must address is whether it is plausible to read the statute, as the Government does, to authorize only damages for economic loss.” Cooper, 566 U.S. at 299 (emphasis added).

2023“The question is not whether the activity may be characterized as a business . . . but whether the entity acts as an arm of the tribe so that its activities are properly deemed to be those of the tribe.” Allen, 464 F.3d at 1046 . “[T]he settled law of [the Ninth Circuit] is that tribal corporations acting as an arm of the tribe enjoy the same sovereign immunity granted to a tribe itself.” Cook v. AVI Casino Enters., 548 F.3d 718, 725 (9th Cir. 2008).

2023“The question is not whether the activity may be characterized as a business . . . but whether the entity acts as an arm of the tribe so that its activities are properly deemed to be those of the tribe.” Allen, 464 F.3d at 1046 . “[T]he settled law of [the Ninth Circuit] is that tribal corporations acting as an arm of the tribe enjoy the same sovereign immunity granted to a tribe itself.” Cook v. AVI Casino Enters., 548 F.3d 718, 725 (9th Cir. 2008).

2011See Locke v. City of Seattle, 162 Wash.2d 474, 480 , 172 P.3d 705 (2007) (citing Berrocal v. Fernandez, 155 Wash.2d 585, 590 , 121 P.3d 82 (2005)).

2011See Locke v. City of Seattle, 162 Wn.2d 474, 480 , 172 P.3d 705 (2007) (citing Berrocal v. Fernandez, 155 Wn.2d 585, 590 ; 121 P.3d 82 (2005)).

2011See Locke v. City of Seattle, 162 Wash.2d 474, 480 , 172 P.3d 705 (2007) (citing Berrocal v. Fernandez, 155 Wash.2d 585, 590 , 121 P.3d 82 (2005)).

2011See Locke v. City of Seattle, 162 Wn.2d 474, 480 , 172 P.3d 705 (2007) (citing Berrocal v. Fernandez, 155 Wn.2d 585, 590 ; 121 P.3d 82 (2005)).

2011See Locke v. City of Seattle, 162 Wash.2d 474, 480 , 172 P.3d 705 (2007) (citing Berrocal v. Fernandez, 155 Wash.2d 585, 590 , 121 P.3d 82 (2005)).

2011See Locke v. City of Seattle, 162 Wn.2d 474, 480 , 172 P.3d 705 (2007) (citing Berrocal v. Fernandez, 155 Wn.2d 585, 590 ; 121 P.3d 82 (2005)).

2009See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 , 104 S.Ct. 900 , 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984). [23] 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). [24] Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. at 282 , 117 S.Ct. 2028 ; see also Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 101 , 104 S.Ct. 900 . [25] "[T]he prohibition placed on the power of the federal judiciary by the [E]leventh [A]mendment exceeds the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity." Aquilar v. Kleppe, 424 F.Supp. 433, 436 (D.Alaska 1976) (citing Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 , 677 n. 19, 94 S.Ct. 1347 , 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974)). [26] In an o

2009Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. at 282 ; see also Halderman, 465 U.S. at 101 . “[T]he prohibition placed on the power of the federal judiciary by the [Ejleventh [A]mendment exceeds the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity.” Aquilar v. Kleppe, 424 F. Supp. 433, 436 (D.

2009See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 , 104 S.Ct. 900 , 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984). [23] 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). [24] Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. at 282 , 117 S.Ct. 2028 ; see also Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 101 , 104 S.Ct. 900 . [25] "[T]he prohibition placed on the power of the federal judiciary by the [E]leventh [A]mendment exceeds the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity." Aquilar v. Kleppe, 424 F.Supp. 433, 436 (D.Alaska 1976) (citing Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 , 677 n. 19, 94 S.Ct. 1347 , 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974)). [26] In an o

2009Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. at 282 ; see also Halderman, 465 U.S. at 101 . “[T]he prohibition placed on the power of the federal judiciary by the [Ejleventh [A]mendment exceeds the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity.” Aquilar v. Kleppe, 424 F. Supp. 433, 436 (D.

1987The Stevens County Building Construction Code contains a nonliability clause at section 202(f) of the Uniform Building Code (1979). 3 By statute, the Legislature has abolished sovereign immunity, providing that a governmental unit shall be liable for its tortious conduct to the same extent as a private person or corporation. 4 Kelso v. Tacoma, 63 Wn.2d 913, 916 , 390 P.2d 2 (1964) states that the "common-law right of sovereign immunity is not in the municipality but in the sovereign from which the immunity is derived." A waiver by the State of its governmental immunity operates to withdraw suc

1987The Stevens County Building Construction Code contains a nonliability clause at section 202(f) of the Uniform Building Code (1979). 3 By statute, the Legislature has abolished sovereign immunity, providing that a governmental unit shall be liable for its tortious conduct to the same extent as a private person or corporation. 4 Kelso v. Tacoma, 63 Wn.2d 913, 916 , 390 P.2d 2 (1964) states that the "common-law right of sovereign immunity is not in the municipality but in the sovereign from which the immunity is derived." A waiver by the State of its governmental immunity operates to withdraw suc

2021Riddoch v. State, 68 Wash. 329, 332 , 123 P. 450 (1912); Billings v. State, 27 Wash. 288, 291 , 67 P. 583 (1902).

2021Riddoch v. State, 68 Wash. 329, 332 , 123 P. 450 (1912); Billings v. State, 27 Wash. 288, 291 , 67 P. 583 (1902).

2011See Locke v. City of Seattle, 162 Wash.2d 474, 480 , 172 P.3d 705 (2007) (citing Berrocal v. Fernandez, 155 Wash.2d 585, 590 , 121 P.3d 82 (2005)).

2011See Locke v. City of Seattle, 162 Wn.2d 474, 480 , 172 P.3d 705 (2007) (citing Berrocal v. Fernandez, 155 Wn.2d 585, 590 ; 121 P.3d 82 (2005)).

2010Sovereign immunity "admits the existence of a duty and a tort for its breach, but denies liability because of immunity." Oberg v. Dep't of Natural Res., 114 Wash.2d 278, 289 , 787 P.2d 918 (1990).

2010Sovereign immunity "admits the existence of a duty and a tort for its breach, but denies liability because of immunity." Oberg v. Dep't of Natural Res., 114 Wash.2d 278, 289 , 787 P.2d 918 (1990).

2009See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 , 104 S.Ct. 900 , 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984). [23] 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). [24] Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. at 282 , 117 S.Ct. 2028 ; see also Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 101 , 104 S.Ct. 900 . [25] "[T]he prohibition placed on the power of the federal judiciary by the [E]leventh [A]mendment exceeds the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity." Aquilar v. Kleppe, 424 F.Supp. 433, 436 (D.Alaska 1976) (citing Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 , 677 n. 19, 94 S.Ct. 1347 , 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974)). [26] In an o

2009Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. at 282 ; see also Halderman, 465 U.S. at 101 . “[T]he prohibition placed on the power of the federal judiciary by the [Ejleventh [A]mendment exceeds the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity.” Aquilar v. Kleppe, 424 F. Supp. 433, 436 (D.

2009See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 , 104 S.Ct. 900 , 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984). [23] 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). [24] Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. at 282 , 117 S.Ct. 2028 ; see also Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 101 , 104 S.Ct. 900 . [25] "[T]he prohibition placed on the power of the federal judiciary by the [E]leventh [A]mendment exceeds the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity." Aquilar v. Kleppe, 424 F.Supp. 433, 436 (D.Alaska 1976) (citing Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 , 677 n. 19, 94 S.Ct. 1347 , 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974)). [26] In an o

2009See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 , 104 S.Ct. 900 , 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984). [23] 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). [24] Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. at 282 , 117 S.Ct. 2028 ; see also Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 101 , 104 S.Ct. 900 . [25] "[T]he prohibition placed on the power of the federal judiciary by the [E]leventh [A]mendment exceeds the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity." Aquilar v. Kleppe, 424 F.Supp. 433, 436 (D.Alaska 1976) (citing Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 , 677 n. 19, 94 S.Ct. 1347 , 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974)). [26] In an o

2007Id. at 633. ¶28 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an analogous holding with respect to taxes on liquor sales on Indian reservations.

2007Matheson, 139 Wash.App. at 633 , 161 P.3d 486 . ¶ 28 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an analogous holding with respect to taxes on liquor sales on Indian reservations.