Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho
|Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho|
|Argued October 16, 1996|
Decided June 23, 1997
|Full case name||Idaho, et al., Petitioners v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, etc., et al.|
521 U.S. 261 (more)|
117 S. Ct. 2028; 138 L. Ed. 2d 438; 65 U.S.L.W. 4540; 27 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,227; 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4776; 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7871; 97 CJ C.A.R. 1000; 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 90
|Prior history||798 F. Supp. 1443 (D. Idaho 1992), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 42 F.3d 1244 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. granted, 517 U.S. 1132 (1996), and cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1133 (1996).|
|Subsequent history||On remand, 118 F.3d 1399 (9th Cir. 1997).|
|The Tribe's suit is not covered by the Ex parte Young exception to state immunity from suit.|
|Majority||Kennedy (parts I, II-A, III), joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas|
|Concurrence||Kennedy (parts II-B, II-C, and II-D), joined by Rehnquist|
|Concurrence||O'Connor, joined by Scalia, Thomas|
|Dissent||Souter, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer|
|U.S. Const. amend XI|
Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Coeur d'Alene Tribe could not maintain an action against the state of Idaho to press its claim to Lake Coeur d'Alene due to the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit, notwithstanding the exception recognized in Ex parte Young. The case was an important precedent for aboriginal title in the United States and sovereign immunity in the United States.
After the district court's decision dismissing the suit, the federal government—in its guardian capacity—brought a substantially similar suit against Idaho; in 2001, in another 5-4 decision, the Court ruled for the federal government: Idaho v. United States (2001).
- United States v. Idaho, 533 U.S. 262 (2001).
- Pamela D. Bucy, This Land is Our Land, or Coeur D'alene Tribe of Idaho v. State of Idaho, 19 Pub. Land & Resources 113 (1998).
- David W. Gross, Examining Aboriginal Rights in Submerged Lands: Coeur D'Alene Tribe v. Idaho, 30 Idaho L. Rev. 139 (1993).
- E. Richard Hart, The Continuing Saga of Indian Land Claims: The Coeur D'Alene Tribe's Claim to Lake Coeur D'Alene, 24 Am. Indian Culture & Res. J. 183 (2000).
- Lydia Hawkins, An Old Doctrine Assaulted: Kennedy Attempts to Eviscerate Ex parte Young: Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 117 S. Ct. 2028 (1997), 24 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 369 (1998).
- John P. LaVelle, Sanctioning a Tyranny: The Diminishment of Ex parte Young, Expansion of Hans Immunity, and Denial of Indian Rights in Coeur d'Alene Tribe, 31 Ariz. St. L.J. 786 (1999).
- Randy L. Meyer, The Supreme Court's Analysis in Idaho v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe of Idaho - Is the Young Exception to the Eleventh Amendment Inapplicable to Indian Tribe Claims?, 30 U. Tol. L. Rev. 131 (1998).
- James R. Rasband, Was Lake Coeur d'Alene Ever Really In Idaho? Did Congress Reserve the Lake for the Coeur d'Alene Tribe Prior to Statehood?, 2001 U.S. Sup. Ct. Cas. 380.
- Lauren E. Rosenblatt, Removing the Eleventh Amendment Barrier: Defending Indian Land Title against State Encroachment after Idaho v. Coeur d' Alene Tribe, 78 Tex. L. Rev. 719 (1999).
- Kathleen Smith, Land Rights: Quiet Title Action against the State: Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, No. 94-1474, 1997 Wl 338603 (U.S. June 23, 1997), 22 Am. Indian L. Rev. 249 (1997).
- Michael R. Thorp & Kristen Bamford Wynne, The Coeur d'Alene Case: Breathing New Life into Old Defenses, 17 Nat. Resources & Env't. 194 (2003).
- Carlos Manuel Vazquez, Night and Day: Coeur d'Alene, Breard, and the Unraveling of the Prospective-Retrospective Distinction in Eleventh Amendment Doctrine, 87 Geo. L.J. 1 (1998).
- Eric B. Wolff, Coeur d'Alene and Existential Categories for Sovereign Immunity Cases, 86 Calif. L. Rev. 879 (1998).