Summary
affirming defendants' Eleventh Amendment immunity defense but noting that New York retains immunity to the extent that the Plaintiffs raise any claims or issues not identical to those made by the United States
Summary of this case from Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. New YorkOpinion
Nos. 99-6003, 99-6005.
Argued: April 26, 1999.
Decided: May 17, 1999.
Appeal from an order denying defendants-appellants' motion for summary judgment (John T. Curtin, Judge) and from an order denying their motion to dismiss (Richard J. Arcara, Judge) on the ground that the claims of the Seneca Nation of Indians and the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Because the United States has been granted permission to intervene and the tribes' complaints seek the same relief as the United States's complaint, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the tribes' claims. We therefore affirm.
ANDREW D. BING, Assistant Attorney General (Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York; Peter H. Schiff, Acting Solicitor General; Nancy A. Spiegel, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), Albany, New York, for Defendants-Appellants.
JEANNE S. WHITEING, Whiteing Smith (Robert P. Isaac, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, Seneca Nation Department of Justice, Salamanca, New York; Arlinda F. Locklear, Jefferson, Maryland, of counsel), Boulder, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
SAMUEL C. ALEXANDER, Attorney, Environment Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice (Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General, Environment Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice; David C. Shilton, Attorney, of counsel), Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee United States of America.
Steven M. Tullberg, Indian Law Resource Center (June L. Lorenzo and Alexandra Page, of counsel), Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians.
BEFORE: WINTER, Chief Judge, MINER, and POOLER, Circuit Judges.
We affirm the orders of the district court denying the State of New York's Eleventh Amendment defenses for substantially the reasons stated by Judge Curtin in the decision below. See Seneca Nation of Indians v. State of New York, 26 F. Supp.2d 555, 563-65 (W.D.N.Y. 1998). In doing so, we note that the State of New York retains its Eleventh Amendment immunity to the extent that the Seneca Nation of Indians or the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians raise claims or issues that are not identical to those made by the United States. See Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 614 (1983) (holding that granting tribes leave to intervene in suit commenced by United States against states does not violate Eleventh Amendment because "[t]he Tribes do not seek to bring new claims or issues against the states").