sovereign immunity in Minnesota

2024See Minn. Stat. § 3.736 (2022); Nusbaum v. Blue Earth County, 422 N.W.2d 713, 719 (Minn. 1988) (discussing the development of the doctrine of sovereign immunity in Minnesota following our decision in Nieting v. Blondell, 235 N.W.2d 597 (Minn. 1975), and the passage of the Tort Claims Act).

2015The doctrine of sovereign immunity, which precludes litigation against the state unless the state has consented to suit, developed from the principle that “the King can do no wrong.” 4 Nieting v. Blondell, 306 Minn. 122, 125 , 235 N.W.2d 597, 599 (1975); see, e.g., Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 715 , 119 S.Ct. 2240 , 144 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999); Janklow v. Minn. Bd. of Examiners for Nursing Home Adm’rs, 552 N.W.2d 711, 715 (Minn.1996).

2015The doctrine of sovereign immunity, which precludes litigation against the state unless the state has consented to suit, developed from the principle that “the King can do no wrong.” 4 Nieting v. Blondell, 306 Minn. 122, 125 , 235 N.W.2d 597, 599 (1975); see, e.g., Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 715 , 119 S.Ct. 2240 , 144 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999); Janklow v. Minn. Bd. of Examiners for Nursing Home Adm’rs, 552 N.W.2d 711, 715 (Minn.1996).

2015The doctrine of sovereign immunity, which precludes litigation against the state unless the state has consented to suit, developed from the principle that “the King can do no wrong.” 4 Nieting v. Blondell, 306 Minn. 122, 125 , 235 N.W.2d 597, 599 (1975); see, e.g., Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 715 , 119 S.Ct. 2240 , 144 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999); Janklow v. Minn. Bd. of Examiners for Nursing Home Adm’rs, 552 N.W.2d 711, 715 (Minn.1996).

2015The doctrine of sovereign immunity, which precludes litigation against the state unless the state has consented to suit, developed from the principle that “the King can do no wrong.” 4 Nieting v. Blondell, 306 Minn. 122, 125 , 235 N.W.2d 597, 599 (1975); see, e.g., Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 715 , 119 S.Ct. 2240 , 144 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999); Janklow v. Minn. Bd. of Examiners for Nursing Home Adm’rs, 552 N.W.2d 711, 715 (Minn.1996).

2015The doctrine of sovereign immunity, which precludes litigation against the state unless the state has consented to suit, developed from the principle that “the King can do no wrong.” 4 Nieting v. Blondell, 306 Minn. 122, 125 , 235 N.W.2d 597, 599 (1975); see, e.g., Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 715 , 119 S.Ct. 2240 , 144 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999); Janklow v. Minn. Bd. of Examiners for Nursing Home Adm’rs, 552 N.W.2d 711, 715 (Minn.1996).

2024See Minn. Stat. § 3.736 (2022); Nusbaum v. Blue Earth County, 422 N.W.2d 713, 719 (Minn. 1988) (discussing the development of the doctrine of sovereign immunity in Minnesota following our decision in Nieting v. Blondell, 235 N.W.2d 597 (Minn. 1975), and the passage of the Tort Claims Act).

2016Nusbaum v. Blue Earth Cty., 422 N.W.2d 713, 717 (Minn. 1988).

2024The tribal social workers are entitled to immunity only if they were “tribal officials acting in their official capacity and within their scope of authority.” Hegner, 524 N.W.2d at 735 (citing Hardin v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 779 F.2d 476, 479-80 (9th Cir. 1985)); see also Otterson v. House, 544 N.W.2d 64, 66 (Minn. App. 1996) (“Sovereign immunity extends to tribal officials acting within their scope of authority.”), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 26, 1996).

2009“Whether a suit is barred by a tribe’s sovereign immunity is an issue of law that this court must determine de novo.” Otterson v. House, 544 N.W.2d 64, 66 (Minn.App.1996), review denied (Minn. Apr. 26, 1996).

2024The tribal social workers are entitled to immunity only if they were “tribal officials acting in their official capacity and within their scope of authority.” Hegner, 524 N.W.2d at 735 (citing Hardin v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 779 F.2d 476, 479-80 (9th Cir. 1985)); see also Otterson v. House, 544 N.W.2d 64, 66 (Minn. App. 1996) (“Sovereign immunity extends to tribal officials acting within their scope of authority.”), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 26, 1996).

1996Hardin v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 779 F.2d 476, 479 (9th Cir.1985).

2013See, e.g., Holmberg v. Holmberg, 588 N.W.2d 720, 727 (Minn.1999) (finding the Marriage Dissolution Award of Attorney Fees statute did not apply to the State); Lienhard v. State, 431 N.W.2d 861, 864 (Minn.1988) ("Since the rationale for the rule of construction that the State is not bound by a statute unless named therein, Minn.Stat. 645.27 (1986), lies in the doctrine of sovereign immunity, there is little reason to extend its application to the construction of a statute subjecting the State to liability for tort claims as if it were a private person.”); State ex rel.

2013See, e.g., Holmberg v. Holmberg, 588 N.W.2d 720, 727 (Minn.1999) (finding the Marriage Dissolution Award of Attorney Fees statute did not apply to the State); Lienhard v. State, 431 N.W.2d 861, 864 (Minn.1988) ("Since the rationale for the rule of construction that the State is not bound by a statute unless named therein, Minn.Stat. 645.27 (1986), lies in the doctrine of sovereign immunity, there is little reason to extend its application to the construction of a statute subjecting the State to liability for tort claims as if it were a private person.”); State ex rel.

2014Tort Claims Act, 1976 Minn. Laws ch. 331, § 33, at 1293 (codified at Minn.Stat. § 3.736); see also Rico v. State, 472 N.W.2d 100, 106 (Minn.1991).

1996Rico v. State, 472 N.W.2d 100, 104 (Minn.1991).

1996See, e.g., United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 383-84 , 6 S.Ct. 1109, 1113-14 , 30 L.Ed. 228 (1886); Weeks Construction, Inc. v. Oglala Sioux Housing Authority, 797 F.2d 668, 671 (8th Cir.1986); Snow v. Quinault Indian Nation, 709 F.2d 1319, 1321 (9th Cir.1983), cert denied, 467 U.S. 1214 , 104 S.Ct. 2655 , 81 L.Ed.2d 362 (1984).

1996See, e.g., United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 383-84 , 6 S.Ct. 1109, 1113-14 , 30 L.Ed. 228 (1886); Weeks Construction, Inc. v. Oglala Sioux Housing Authority, 797 F.2d 668, 671 (8th Cir.1986); Snow v. Quinault Indian Nation, 709 F.2d 1319, 1321 (9th Cir.1983), cert denied, 467 U.S. 1214 , 104 S.Ct. 2655 , 81 L.Ed.2d 362 (1984).

1995Duluth Lumber & Plywood Co. v. Delta Dev., Inc., 281 N.W.2d 377, 383 (Minn.1979). 1 Tribal sovereignty has been recognized in the law since 1832.

1992Duluth Lumber & Plywood v. Delta Dev., 281 N.W.2d 377, 383 (Minn.1979); see also Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58 , 98 S.Ct. 1670, 1677 , 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978).

2025In Spanel v. Mounds View School District No. 621, 118 N.W.2d 795, 803 (Minn. 1962), we abolished the doctrine of sovereign immunity for tort 12 claims against municipalities and tasked the Minnesota Legislature with defining new rules for municipal immunity.

2011No. 621, 264 Minn. 279 , 293 n. 42, 118 N.W.2d 795 , 803 n. 42 (1962) (discussing the broad sovereign immunity protecting the State).

2024Blatchford v. Native Vill. of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775 , 786 n.4 (1991) (“The fact that Congress grants jurisdiction to hear a claim does not suffice to show Congress has abrogated all defenses to that claim.”) (emphasis in original); Gavle, 555 N.W.2d at 288 (“[T]he concept [of tribal sovereign immunity] is more properly thought of as an affirmative 5 This congressional grant of jurisdiction does not apply to the Red Lake Reservation.

1997Indian “sovereignty” today is used principally for three reasons: (1) for the tribal government and its casino interests to shield tribal enrollees on and off the reservation from how much money is being taken in; (2) as a shield for alleged law breakers to attempt to avoid prosecution under applicable state and federal criminal laws (see Jackson, 558 N.W.2d 752 (Minn.App.1997); Stone, 557 N.W.2d 588 (Minn.App.1996); Bray, 555 N.W.2d 757 ; and the above-referenced sovereign defense of the tribal officials in federal district court in 1996); and (3) as a shield to keep from having to answer as

2024A. In Minnesota, the doctrine of sovereign immunity developed through common law based on the principle that “the King can do no wrong.” Nichols, 858 N.W.2d at 775 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2024Sovereign immunity “serves to protect the fiscal stability of government.” Nichols, 858 N.W.2d at 775 .

2011Our only previous examination of this statute was in the context of tribal sovereign immunity. 1 In Tibbetts v. Leech Lake Reservation Business Committee, we held that section 3172 2 did not waive the sovereign immunity that shielded the employer, an Indian tribe, from liability under Minnesota’s workers’ compensation laws. 397 N.W.2d 883, 888-90 (1986).

2011We also wrote in dicta that under section 3172, “an Indian injured on an Indian reservation in the course of his employment by a non-Indian employer could maintain a workers’ compensation action against that employer under the state’s workers’ compensation law.” Id. at 888 .

1995Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58 , 98 S.Ct. 1670, 1677 , 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978).

1995Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58 , 98 S.Ct. 1670, 1677 , 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978).

2024Lower Sioux relies on Alltel Communications, LLC v. DeJordy in support of its argument that a subpoena is a “suit” for purposes of a sovereign-immunity analysis. 675 F.3d 1100 (8th Cir. 2012).

2024See, e.g., DeJordy, 675 F.3d at 1105-06 .

2024Blatchford v. Native Vill. of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775 , 786 n.4 (1991) (“The fact that Congress grants jurisdiction to hear a claim does not suffice to show Congress has abrogated all defenses to that claim.”) (emphasis in original); Gavle, 555 N.W.2d at 288 (“[T]he concept [of tribal sovereign immunity] is more properly thought of as an affirmative 5 This congressional grant of jurisdiction does not apply to the Red Lake Reservation.

2024As such, Lower Sioux is entitled to immunity from suit unless Public Law 280 abrogated the Tribe’s sovereign immunity. 7 Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin, 599 U.S. 382 , 385 (2023).

2024As the United States Supreme Court has noted, “That is a high bar.” Id.

2024Cal. Dep’t of Fish & Game v. Quechan Tribe of Indians, 595 F.2d 1153 , 1156 (9th Cir. 1979) (“Neither the express terms of 18 U.S.C. § 1162 , nor the Congressional history of the statute, reveal any intention by Congress for it to serve as a waiver of a Tribe’s sovereign immunity.”).

2024See Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Eng’g, 476 U.S. 877, 892 (1986) (“We have never read Pub.

2017Treleven v. Univ. of Minn., 73 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir. 1996); accord Raygor, 620 N.W.2d at 683.

2017Charles Cty., Mo. v. Wisconsin, 447 F.3d 1055, 1059 (8th Cir. 2006) ("Congress may not use its powers under Article 1 to abrogate the states' sovereign immunity.”). . ‘ BSU relies on an amicus brief filed in New Mexico and a federal circuit court decision, Neither authority is persuasive.

2017First, Katz concerned suits filed in federal bankruptcy courts and did not take “issue with Alden’s recognition of a State’s sovereign immunity in its own courts.” Id. at 6.

2017Second, “Katz involved a unique body of law governing ‘in rem’ ” jurisdiction and acknowledged that in rem jurisdiction does “ ‘not implicate States’ sovereignty to nearly the same degree as other kinds of jurisdictions.’” Id. (quoting Katz, 546 U.S. at 362 , 126 S.Ct. at 990 ).