Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation v State of Utah

Tribe sued Utah and several counties seeking a preliminary injunction prohibiting criminal prosecution of an Indian for actions done on lands previously declared to be Indian territory by the 10th Circuit. This was denied by the district court. The panel reversed. It held the improper prosecution invaded tribal sovereignty and that this prosecution is part of a longstanding campaign to undo the holdings of the 10th circuit as to where the tribal territory is. Thus, Tribe will suffer an irreparable injury. The merits also support issuing the injunction as Utah and its counties have no jurisdiction over the Indian, tribal government is more important than enforcing Utah traffic laws and the previous orders of the 10th Circuit remove this case form the federal anti-injunction act and the lack of any state interest here precludes younger abstention. The panela also held that Tribe has sovereign immunity from the counterclaims field by a county defendant in the district court as Congress did not authorize them and Tribe did not waive immunity here as two agreements to do so expired and the third document Utah relies upon specifically does not waive immunity. It held that the county defendant here is not entitled to immunity as the prosecutors are county officials paid by county funds. The panel finally warned the county defendant and Utah that continued failure to respect the final judgments in the earlier cases involving the boundaries of Indian country in Utah would result in sanctions.

Levy v Kansas department of Social and Rehabilitation Services

Levy joined a suit against Department claiming violations of the Americans with disabilities Act and the rehabilitation Act. The district court granted summary judgment to department on sovereign immunity grounds as tot eh ADA claim and limitations grounds as to the rehabilitation Act claim. The panel affirmed. It held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction as Levy joined the case and added the rehabilitation Act claim before sovereign immunity was raised as a defense. It next held that sovereign immunity was not waived here as the ADA was passed after the Rehabilitation Act waiver and implied waiver through referencing the Rehabilitation Act waiver in the ADA does not meet the stringent test requiring knowing and voluntary waiver and clear language in the statute. It finally held that despite the citation to the wrong statute in the controlling precedent on the limitations issue and some more recent case law in Kansas as to how to characterize discrimination claims under federal law, 10th Circuit precedent equates rehabilitation Act claims with 1983 actions and the two year limitations period applies. As Levy joined the suit more than two years after the alleged constructive discharge, the claim is barred.