Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Lewis v. Clarke

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Supreme Court of the United States
Lewis v. Clarke
Reference: 15-1500
Issue: Sovereign immunity
Term: 2016
Important Dates
Argued: January 9, 2017
Decided: April 25, 2017
Outcome
Connecticut Supreme Court reversed and remanded
Vote
8-0 to reverse and remand
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Anthony Kennedy • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan
Concurring
Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg


Lewis v. Clarke is a case argued during the October 2016 term of the U.S. Supreme Court. Argument in the case was held on January 9, 2017. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the Connecticut Supreme Court. On April 25, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed and remanded the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court. In an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor for a six-justice majority, the court held that a tribe's sovereign immunity does not extend to the actions of a tribal employee when the employee is the real party in interest and focus of a lawsuit. The court also held in such situations that tribal sovereign immunity cannot indemnify an employee from a lawsuit. Justices Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote opinions concurring in the judgment, meaning they agreed with the holding of the court but for different or additional reasons.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Brian and Michelle Lewis were struck by a car driven by William Clarke, who was employed by a Native American tribe to shuttle patrons of its casino. The plaintiffs sued, but Clarke countered that as he was working for the tribe, he had sovereign immunity from prosecution.
  • The issue: Does the sovereign immunity of a Native American tribe extend to tribal employees for their work-related activities against torts?
  • The outcome: On April 25, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed and remanded the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court.


    • In brief: Brian and Michelle Lewis were struck by a car driven by William Clarke, who was employed by a Native American tribe to shuttle patrons of its casino. The accident occurred off of the sovereign grounds of the tribe, but the accident did occur during the course and scope of Clarke's work-related activities for the tribe. The plaintiffs sued Clarke and not the tribe, but Clarke countered that, as he was working for the tribe, he had sovereign immunity from prosecution as if the tribe itself had been sued. A trial court in Connecticut rejected that argument, however, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plaintiffs could not circumvent sovereign immunity by suing Clarke personally for actions conducted during the course and scope of his work-related activities. Argument in the case was held on January 9, 2017.

    You can review the Connecticut Supreme Court's opinion here.[1]

    Click on the tabs below to learn more about this Supreme Court case.

    Case


    Background

    This is a case about the extent to which the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes applies to a non-citizen employed by the tribe during the course and scope of the employee's work for the tribe.

    On October 22, 2011, Brian and Michelle Lewis were in a car accident caused by William Clarke near Norwalk, Connecticut. Clarke, a licensed driver in the state of Connecticut, was driving a limousine carrying patrons of the Mohegan Sun Casino to their homes. The Mohegan Sun Casino is operated by the Mohegan Sun Gaming Authority (Authority). The Authority is an instrumentality of the Mohegan Tribe, a federally-recognized, sovereign Indian nation. The Authority employed Clarke as a driver, and the accident occurred during the course and scope of Clarke's duties for the Authority.[2][3]

    The Lewises filed a civil lawsuit in Connecticut state courts against Clarke individually, and not against the casino, the Authority, or the Mohegan Tribe. The Lewises alleged that they sustained injuries as a direct result of Clarke's negligence. Clarke filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit alleging that the Connecticut court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. As the accident occurred during the course and scope of Clarke's employment for the Authority, and as the Authority is an instrumentality of the Mohegan Tribe, Clarke asserted that he was entitled to sovereign immunity. The Lewises' alleged that Clarke was not entitled to sovereign immunity because the Lewises' did not seek civil damages from any of the tribal nation entities, i.e. the casino, the Authority, or the Mohegan Tribe; the Lewises' filed the action against Clarke individually. The trial court denied Clarke's motion to dismiss. The court held that it did have jurisdiction over the matter, denying Clarke's claim of tribal sovereign immunity.[1]

    Clarke appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss to the Connecticut Supreme Court. After determining that the denial of Clarke's motion was immediately appealable, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed and remanded the decision of the lower court. The Connecticut Supreme Court held that "it is well established that [t]he doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity extends to individuals tribal officials acting in their representative capacity and within the scope of their authority" and that "indeed, this court has also recognized that tribal immunity extends to individual tribal officials and employees acting within the scope of their authority ... [c]laimaints may not simply describe their claims against a tribal official as in his 'individual capacity' in order to eliminate tribal immunity."[1]

    The court also rejected the Lewises' claim that a precedent of the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Maxwell v. San Diego, could be applied in this case. While Connecticut courts fall within the jurisdiction of the Second Circuit, not the Ninth, the court still examined the Lewises' argument. In Maxwell, the Ninth Circuit held that damages sought against tribal employees in their individual capacities could be excluded from a claim of tribal sovereign immunity. The Connecticut Supreme Court, however, rejected applying Maxwell, holding "the fact that the allegations against the plaintiffs in Maxwell involved claims of gross negligence makes the Ninth Circuit's holding in that case distinguishable from the present case. Actions involving claims of more than negligence are often deemed to be outside the scope of employment and, therefore, not subject to sovereign immunity." The Connecticut Supreme Court also noted that, one month prior to Maxwell, the Ninth Circuit held in Miller v. Wright that a tribe's sovereign immunity "extends to its officials who were acting in their official capacities and within the scope of their authority when they taxed transactions occurring on the reservation." The Connecticut Supreme Court also noted that no other jurisdictions had adopted the Maxwell approach other than the Ninth Circuit.[1]

    Petitioner's challenge

    Brian and Michelle Lewis, the petitioners, are challenging the Connecticut Supreme Court's holding that tribal sovereign immunity covers Clarke in this dispute.

    Certiorari granted

    On June 13, 2016, Brian Lewis et al., the petitioners, initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Connecticut Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court granted Lewis' certiorari request on September 29, 2016. Argument in the case was held on January 9, 2017.

    Arguments


    Question presented

    Question presented:

    "Whether the sovereign immunity of an Indian tribe bars individual-capacity damages actions against tribal employees for torts committed within the scope of their employment."[4]


    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[5]



    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[6]

    Outcome

    Decision

    On April 25, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed and remanded the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court. In an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor for a six-justice majority, the court held that a tribe's sovereign immunity does not extend to the actions of a tribal employee when the employee is the real party in interest and focus of a lawsuit. The court also held in such situations that tribal sovereign immunity cannot indemnify an employee from a lawsuit. Justices Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote opinions concurring in the judgment, meaning they agreed with the holding of the court but for different or additional reasons.[7]

    Opinion

    After a review of the relevant provisions of federal, state, and tribal law pertaining to the Mohegan Sun tribe and their gaming operations, as well as of the factual and procedural history of the case, Justice Sotomayor noted that two issues in the case required the court's resolution, "(1) whether the sovereign immunity of an Indian tribe bars individual-capacity damages against tribal employees for torts committed within the scope of their employment; and (2) what role, if any, a tribe’s decision to indemnify its employee splays in this analysis."[7]

    Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's precedent in Hafer v. Melo, Justice Sotomayor noted that the court's cases established that courts should determine whether it is the sovereign that is the real party in interest of a lawsuit to determine if sovereign immunity applies in a particular case. She made a distinction between individual-capacity (or personal-capacity) lawsuits, such as the tort filed by Brian and Michelle Lewis against William Clarke, and official capacity lawsuits, in which an individual is acting as an officer of the sovereign. Citing Hafer, Justice Sotomayor noted that "sovereign immunity 'does not erect a barrier against suits to impose individuals and personal liability.'"[7] Justice Sotomayor went on to say,[7]

    “

    It is apparent that these general principles foreclose Clarke’s sovereign immunity defense in this case. This is a negligence action arising from a tort committed by Clarke on an interstate highway within the State of Connecticut. The suit is brought against a tribal employee operating a vehicle within the scope of his employment but on state lands, and the judgment will not operate against the Tribe. This is not a suit against Clarke in his official capacity. It is simply a suit against Clarke to recover for his personal actions, which 'will not require action by the sovereign or disturb the sovereign’s property.' ... We are cognizant of the Supreme Court of Connecticut’s concern that plaintiffs not circumvent tribal sovereign immunity. But here, that immunity is simply not in play. Clarke, not the Gaming Authority, is the real party in interest.[8]

    		”

    Justice Sotomayor next addressed the claim that the tribe's sovereign immunity could indemnify Clarke from the lawsuit. Justice Sotomayor noted that the court had "never before had occasion to extend a sovereign immunity defense to a suit against an employee in his individual capacity." In holding that indemnity cannot extend sovereign immunity to individual employees for actions committed in their personal capacity, Justice Sotomayor wrote,[7]

    “

    The critical inquiry is who may be legally bound by the court’s adverse judgment, not who will ultimately pick up the tab. Here, the Connecticut courts exercise no jurisdiction over the Tribe or the Gaming Authority, and their judgments will not bind the Tribe or its instrumentalities in any way. The Tribe’s indemnification provision does not somehow convert the suit against Clarke into a suit against the sovereign; when Clarke is sued in his individual capacity, he is held responsible only for his individual wrongdoing. Moreover, indemnification is not a certainty here. Clarke will not be indemnified by the Gaming Authority should it determine that he engaged in 'wanton, reckless, or malicious' activity. ... That determination is not necessary to the disposition of the Lewises’ suit against Clarke in the Connecticut state courts, which is a separate legal matter. ...
    Clarke notes that courts have extended sovereign immunity to private healthcare insurance companies under certain circumstances. ... But, these cases rest on the proposition that the fiscal intermediaries are essentially state instrumentalities, as the governing regulations make clear. ... It is well established in our precedent that a suit against an arm or instrumentality of the State is treated as one against the State itself. ... We have not before treated a lawsuit against an individual employee as one against a state instrumentality, and Clarke offers no persuasive reason to do so now.[8]

    		”

    Having found that tribal sovereign immunity neither extended to Clarke's individual actions nor indemnified him from a civil suit, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court.

    Concurring opinions

    Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a brief opinion concurring in the judgment only. He wrote,[7]

    “

    I remain of the view that tribal immunity does not extend 'to suits arising out of a tribe’s commercial activities conducted beyond its territory.' ... This suit arose from an off-reservation commercial act. ... Accordingly, I would hold that respondent cannot assert the Tribe’s immunity, regardless of the capacity in which he was sued. Because the Court reaches the same result for different reasons, I concur in its judgment.[8]

    		”

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also wrote a brief opinion concurring in the judgment only. She wrote,[7]

    “

    On the scope of tribal immunity from suit, I adhere to the dissenting views expressed in Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U. S. 751, 760 (1998) (Stevens, J., dissenting), and Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1). See also id., at ___ (GINSBURG, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1). These dissenting opinions explain why tribes, interacting with nontribal members outside reservation boundaries, should be subject to nondiscriminatory state laws of general application. I agree with the Court, however, that a voluntary indemnity undertaking does not convert a suit against a tribal employee, in the employee’s individual capacity, into a suit against the tribe. I therefore concur in the Court’s judgment.[8]

    		”

    Dissenting opinions

    There were no dissenting opinions filed in this case.


    The opinion

    Filings

    The court granted Lewis' certiorari request on September 29, 2016.

    Merits filings

    Parties' filings

    Brian and Michelle Lewis, the petitioners, filed a merits brief on November 14, 2016.

    William Clarke, the respondent, filed a merits brief on December 14, 2016.

    Brian and Michelle Lewis filed a reply brief on the merits on December 30, 2016.

    Amicus curiae filings

    The following groups filed briefs in support of the petitioners, Brian and Michelle Lewis.

    • Brief of the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association et al.
    • Brief of the United States of America urging reversal

    The following groups filed briefs in support of the respondent, William Clarke.

    • Brief of the National Congress of American Indians et al.
    • Brief of the Otoe-Missouria Tribe et al.
    • Brief of the Seminole Tribe of Florida et al.

    Certiorari filings

    Parties' filings

    • Brian Lewis et al., the petitioners, filed a petition for certiorari on June 13, 2016.
    • William Clarke et al., the respondents, filed a brief in opposition to certiorari on July 13, 2016.

    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Supreme Court of Connecticut, Brian Lewis et al. v. William Clarke et al., March 15, 2016
    2. ↑ The Mohegan Tribe, "Government," accessed October 24, 2016
    3. ↑ Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority, "About MTGA," accessed October 24, 2016
    4. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Lewis v. Clarke, September 29, 2016
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Lewis v. Clarke, argued January 9, 2017
    6. ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2016/15-1500_5g68.pdf Supreme Court of the United States, Lewis v. Clarke, argued January 9, 2017]
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 Supreme Court of the United States, Lewis v. Clarke, decided April 25, 2017
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Lewis_v._Clarke&oldid=8891686"