lewis
et
al
clarke
argued
january
decided
april
petitioners
brian
michelle
lewis
driving
connecticut
interstate
struck
behind
vehicle
driven
respondent
william
clarke
mohegan
tribal
gaming
authority
employee
transporting
mohegan
sun
casino
patrons
lewises
sued
clarke
individual
capacity
state
clarke
moved
dismiss
lack
jurisdiction
arguing
employee
gaming
authority
arm
mohegan
tribe
entitled
sovereign
immunity
acting
within
scope
employment
time
accident
similarly
entitled
sovereign
immunity
suit
also
argued
alternative
prevail
gaming
authority
bound
tribal
law
indemnify
trial
denied
clarke
motion
connecticut
reversed
holding
tribal
sovereign
immunity
barred
suit
clarke
acting
within
scope
employment
accident
occurred
consider
whether
clarke
entitled
sovereign
immunity
based
indemnification
statute
held
suit
brought
tribal
employee
individual
capacity
employee
tribe
real
party
interest
tribe
sovereign
immunity
implicated
pp
context
lawsuits
state
federal
employees
entities
courts
look
whether
sovereign
real
party
interest
determine
whether
sovereign
immunity
bars
suit
see
hafer
melo
defendant
action
relief
sought
nominally
official
fact
official
office
thus
sovereign
may
assert
sovereign
immunity
kentucky
graham
officer
action
seeks
impose
individual
liability
upon
government
officer
actions
taken
color
state
law
hafer
may
able
assert
personal
immunity
defenses
sovereign
immunity
reach
clarke
argument
entitled
personal
immunity
defense
official
immunity
clarke
raised
first
time
appeal
pp
applying
general
rules
context
tribal
sovereign
immunity
apparent
foreclose
clarke
sovereign
immunity
defense
action
arises
tort
committed
clarke
connecticut
interstate
simply
suit
clarke
recover
personal
actions
clarke
gaming
authority
real
party
interest
state
extended
sovereign
immunity
tribal
employees
beyond
sovereign
immunity
principles
recognize
either
state
federal
employees
pp
indemnification
provision
matter
law
extend
sovereign
immunity
individual
employees
otherwise
fall
protective
cloak
pp
conclusion
follows
naturally
principles
discussed
previously
applied
different
question
whether
state
instrumentality
may
invoke
state
immunity
suit
even
federal
government
agreed
indemnify
instrumentality
adverse
judgments
regents
univ
cal
doe
held
indemnification
provision
divest
state
instrumentality
eleventh
amendment
immunity
analysis
turned
potential
legal
liability
lay
whence
money
pay
damages
award
ultimately
came
connecticut
courts
exercise
jurisdiction
tribe
gaming
authority
judgments
bind
tribe
instrumentalities
way
moreover
indemnification
certainty
clarke
indemnified
gaming
authority
determine
engaged
wanton
reckless
malicious
activity
mohegan
tribe
code
pp
courts
extended
sovereign
immunity
private
healthcare
insurance
companies
certain
circumstances
cases
rest
proposition
fiscal
intermediaries
essentially
state
instrumentalities
clarke
offers
persuasive
reason
depart
precedent
treat
lawsuit
individual
employee
one
state
instrumentality
similarly
never
held
civil
rights
suit
state
officer
individual
capacity
implicates
eleventh
amendment
state
sovereign
immunity
suit
finally
conclusion
indemnification
provisions
alter
analysis
sovereign
immunity
purposes
consistent
practice
applies
contexts
diversity
citizenship
joinder
pp
reversed
remanded
sotomayor
delivered
opinion
roberts
kennedy
breyer
alito
kagan
joined
thomas
ginsburg
filed
opinions
concurring
judgment
gorsuch
took
part
consideration
decision
case
opinion
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
washington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
brian
lewis
et
petitioners
william
clarke
writ
certiorari
connecticut
april
justice
sotomayor
delivered
opinion
indian
tribes
generally
entitled
immunity
suit
considered
scope
immunity
number
circumstances
case
presents
ordinary
negligence
action
brought
tribal
employee
state
state
law
granted
certiorari
resolve
whether
indian
tribe
sovereign
immunity
bars
damages
actions
tribal
employees
torts
committed
within
scope
employment
employees
indemnified
tribe
hold
suit
brought
tribal
employee
individual
capacity
employee
tribe
real
party
interest
tribe
sovereign
immunity
implicated
employee
acting
within
scope
employment
time
tort
committed
sufficient
bar
suit
employee
basis
tribal
sovereign
immunity
hold
indemnification
provision
extend
tribe
sovereign
immunity
otherwise
reach
accordingly
reverse
remand
mohegan
tribe
indians
connecticut
traces
lineage
back
centuries
originally
part
lenni
lenape
tribe
formed
independent
mohegan
tribe
leadership
sachem
uncas
early
fawcett
lasting
mohegans
accordance
petition
procedures
established
bureau
indian
affairs
tribe
attained
federal
see
fed
reg
mohegan
preamble
art
ii
one
means
maintaining
economic
tribe
entered
gaming
compact
state
connecticut
pursuant
indian
gaming
regulatory
act
stat
et
seq
compact
authorizes
tribe
conduct
gaming
land
subject
certain
conditions
including
establishment
gaming
disputes
see
fed
reg
approving
compact
mohegan
indian
tribe
state
connecticut
may
mohegan
art
xiii
mohegan
tribe
code
supp
mohegan
tribal
gaming
authority
arm
tribe
exercises
powers
mohegan
tribe
tribal
gaming
activities
mohegan
art
xiii
mohegan
tribe
code
particular
relevance
mohegan
law
sets
sovereign
immunity
indemnification
policies
applicable
disputes
arising
gaming
activities
gaming
authority
waived
sovereign
immunity
consented
sued
mohegan
gaming
disputes
mohegan
art
xiii
mohegan
tribe
code
neither
tribe
gaming
authority
consented
suit
claims
arising
connecticut
state
law
see
mohegan
art
ix
mohegan
tribe
code
see
also
blatchford
native
village
noatak
observing
indian
tribes
surrendered
immunity
suits
mohegan
tribe
code
provides
gaming
authority
shall
save
harmless
indemnify
officer
employee
financial
loss
expense
arising
claim
demand
suit
reason
alleged
negligence
officer
employee
found
acting
discharge
duties
within
scope
employment
gaming
authority
indemnify
employees
engage
wanton
reckless
malicious
activity
mohegan
tribe
code
petitioners
brian
michelle
lewis
driving
interstate
norwalk
connecticut
limousine
driven
respondent
william
clarke
hit
vehicle
behind
clarke
gaming
authority
employee
transporting
patrons
mohegan
sun
casino
homes
purposes
appeal
undisputed
clarke
caused
accident
lewises
filed
suit
clarke
individual
capacity
connecticut
state
clarke
moved
dismiss
lack
jurisdiction
basis
tribal
sovereign
immunity
see
wl
super
clarke
argued
gaming
authority
arm
tribe
entitled
sovereign
immunity
employee
gaming
authority
acting
within
scope
employment
time
accident
similarly
entitled
sovereign
immunity
suit
according
clarke
denying
motion
abrogate
tribe
sovereign
immunity
trial
denied
clarke
motion
dismiss
agreed
lewises
sovereign
immunity
analysis
focus
remedy
sought
complaint
end
identified
clarke
gaming
authority
tribe
real
party
interest
damages
remedy
sought
solely
clarke
way
affect
tribe
ability
govern
independently
therefore
concluded
tribal
sovereign
immunity
implicated
also
rejected
clarke
alternative
argument
gaming
authority
obligated
indemnify
pursuant
mohegan
tribe
code
end
paying
damages
prevail
remedy
analysis
trial
reasoned
voluntary
undertaking
used
extend
sovereign
immunity
otherwise
exist
ibid
connecticut
reversed
holding
tribal
sovereign
immunity
bar
suit
agreed
clarke
acting
within
scope
employment
mohegan
tribal
gaming
authority
mohegan
tribal
gaming
authority
arm
mohegan
tribe
tribal
sovereign
immunity
bars
plaintiffs
claims
particular
significance
ensuring
plaintiffs
circumvent
tribal
immunity
merely
naming
defendant
employee
tribe
complaint
concerns
actions
taken
within
scope
duties
complaint
allege
plaintiffs
offered
evidence
acted
outside
scope
authority
otherwise
reasoned
protections
tribal
immunity
alterations
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
determined
clarke
entitled
sovereign
immunity
sole
basis
acting
within
scope
employment
accident
occurred
consider
whether
clarke
entitled
sovereign
immunity
basis
indemnification
statute
granted
certiorari
consider
whether
tribal
sovereign
immunity
bars
lewises
suit
clarke
reverse
judgment
connecticut
ii
two
issues
require
resolution
whether
sovereign
immunity
indian
tribe
bars
damages
tribal
employees
torts
committed
within
scope
employment
role
tribe
decision
indemnify
employees
plays
analysis
decide
case
framework
precedents
regarding
tribal
immunity
cases
establish
context
lawsuits
state
federal
employees
entities
courts
look
whether
sovereign
real
party
interest
determine
whether
sovereign
immunity
bars
suit
see
hafer
melo
making
assessment
courts
may
simply
rely
characterization
parties
complaint
rather
must
determine
first
instance
whether
remedy
sought
truly
sovereign
see
ex
parte
new
york
example
action
essence
state
even
state
named
party
state
real
party
interest
entitled
invoke
eleventh
amendment
protection
reason
arm
instrumentality
state
generally
enjoys
immunity
sovereign
regents
univ
cal
doe
similarly
lawsuits
brought
employees
official
capacity
represent
another
way
pleading
action
entity
officer
agent
may
also
barred
sovereign
immunity
kentucky
graham
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
distinction
suits
paramount
claim
relief
sought
nominally
official
fact
official
office
thus
sovereign
michigan
dept
state
police
dugan
rank
officials
sued
official
capacities
leave
office
successors
automatically
assume
role
litigation
hafer
real
party
interest
government
entity
named
official
see
edelman
jordan
suits
hand
seek
impose
individual
liability
upon
government
officer
actions
taken
color
state
law
hafer
emphasis
added
see
also
discharged
employees
entitled
bring
personal
damages
action
state
auditor
general
cf
bivens
six
unknown
fed
narcotics
agents
fficers
sued
personal
capacity
come
individuals
hafer
real
party
interest
individual
sovereign
identity
real
party
interest
dictates
immunities
may
available
defendants
action
may
assert
sovereign
immunity
graham
officer
action
hand
may
able
assert
personal
immunity
defenses
example
absolute
prosecutorial
immunity
certain
circumstances
van
de
kamp
goldstein
sovereign
immunity
erect
barrier
suits
impose
individual
personal
liability
hafer
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
see
alden
maine
reason
depart
general
rules
context
tribal
sovereign
immunity
apparent
general
principles
foreclose
clarke
sovereign
immunity
defense
case
negligence
action
arising
tort
committed
clarke
interstate
highway
within
state
connecticut
suit
brought
tribal
employee
operating
vehicle
within
scope
employment
state
lands
judgment
operate
tribe
suit
clarke
official
capacity
simply
suit
clarke
recover
personal
actions
require
action
sovereign
disturb
sovereign
property
larson
domestic
foreign
commerce
cognizant
connecticut
concern
plaintiffs
circumvent
tribal
sovereign
immunity
immunity
simply
play
clarke
gaming
authority
real
party
interest
ruling
clarke
immune
suit
solely
acting
within
scope
employment
extended
sovereign
immunity
tribal
employees
beyond
sovereign
immunity
principles
recognize
either
state
federal
employees
see
graham
protection
offered
tribal
sovereign
immunity
broader
protection
offered
state
federal
sovereign
immunity
accordingly
established
sovereign
immunity
principles
gaming
authority
immunity
circumstances
bar
suit
iii
conclusion
notwithstanding
clarke
argues
gaming
authority
real
party
interest
required
mohegan
tribe
code
indemnify
clarke
adverse
never
occasion
decide
whether
indemnification
clause
sufficient
extend
sovereign
immunity
defense
suit
employee
individual
capacity
hold
indemnification
provision
matter
law
extend
sovereign
immunity
individual
employees
otherwise
fall
protective
cloak
holding
follows
naturally
principles
discussed
indeed
applied
principles
different
question
whether
state
instrumentality
may
invoke
state
immunity
suit
even
federal
government
agreed
indemnify
instrumentality
adverse
judgments
regents
univ
individual
brought
suit
university
california
public
university
state
california
breach
contract
related
employment
laboratory
operated
university
pursuant
contract
federal
government
held
indemnification
provision
divest
state
instrumentality
eleventh
amendment
immunity
analysis
turned
potential
legal
liability
lay
whence
money
pay
damages
award
ultimately
came
lawsuit
bound
university
held
eleventh
amendment
applied
litigation
even
though
damages
award
ultimately
paid
federal
department
energy
reasoning
remains
critical
inquiry
may
legally
bound
adverse
judgment
ultimately
pick
connecticut
courts
exercise
jurisdiction
tribe
gaming
authority
judgments
bind
tribe
instrumentalities
way
tribe
indemnification
provision
somehow
convert
suit
clarke
suit
sovereign
clarke
sued
individual
capacity
held
responsible
individual
wrongdoing
moreover
indemnification
certainty
clarke
indemnified
gaming
authority
determine
engaged
wanton
reckless
malicious
activity
mohegan
tribe
code
determination
necessary
disposition
lewises
suit
clarke
connecticut
state
courts
separate
legal
matter
clarke
notes
courts
extended
sovereign
immunity
private
healthcare
insurance
companies
certain
circumstances
see
pani
empire
blue
cross
blue
shield
pine
view
gardens
mutual
omaha
ins
cadc
brief
respondent
cases
rest
proposition
fiscal
intermediaries
essentially
state
instrumentalities
governing
regulations
make
clear
see
cfr
providing
medicare
administrator
real
party
interest
litigation
involving
administration
program
well
established
precedent
suit
arm
instrumentality
state
treated
one
state
see
regents
univ
treated
lawsuit
individual
employee
one
state
instrumentality
clarke
offers
persuasive
reason
ever
held
civil
rights
suit
state
officer
individual
capacity
implicates
eleventh
amendment
state
sovereign
immunity
federal
appellate
courts
considered
indemnity
question
rejected
argument
indemnity
statute
brings
eleventh
amendment
play
actions
see
stoner
wisconsin
dept
agriculture
trade
consumer
protection
blalock
schwinden
duckworth
franzen
cases
rely
concern
originally
drove
adoption
eleventh
amendment
protection
involuntary
liability
see
hess
port
authority
corporation
institute
indemnification
policies
voluntarily
indemnification
provisions
implicate
one
underlying
rationales
state
sovereign
immunity
government
ability
make
decisions
allocation
scarce
resources
alden
finally
conclusion
indemnification
provisions
alter
analysis
purposes
sovereign
immunity
consistent
practice
applies
contexts
diversity
citizenship
joinder
assessing
diversity
jurisdiction
courts
look
real
parties
controversy
navarro
savings
assn
lee
applying
principle
courts
agreed
fact
third
party
indemnifies
one
named
parties
case
general
rule
influence
diversity
analysis
see
corfield
dallas
glen
hills
lp
squibb
sons
accident
cas
ins
similarly
held
party
become
required
party
joinder
purposes
federal
rule
civil
procedure
simply
virtue
indemnifying
one
named
parties
see
gardiner
virgin
islands
water
power
rochester
methodist
hospital
travelers
ins
sum
although
tribal
sovereign
immunity
implicated
suit
brought
individual
officers
official
capacities
simply
present
claim
made
employees
individual
capacities
indemnification
statute
one
issue
alter
analysis
clarke
may
avail
sovereign
immunity
defense
iv
judgment
connecticut
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
inconsistent
opinion
ordered
justice
gorsuch
took
part
consideration
decision
case
thomas
concurring
judgment
brian
lewis
et
petitioners
william
clarke
writ
certiorari
connecticut
april
justice
thomas
concurring
judgment
remain
view
tribal
immunity
extend
suits
arising
tribe
commercial
activities
conducted
beyond
territory
michigan
bay
mills
indian
community
dissenting
opinion
slip
see
also
kiowa
tribe
manufacturing
technologies
stevens
dissenting
suit
arose
commercial
act
ante
accordingly
hold
respondent
assert
tribe
immunity
regardless
capacity
sued
reaches
result
different
reasons
concur
judgment
ginsburg
concurring
judgment
brian
lewis
et
petitioners
william
clarke
writ
certiorari
connecticut
april
justice
ginsburg
concurring
judgment
scope
tribal
immunity
suit
adhere
dissenting
views
expressed
kiowa
tribe
manufacturing
technologies
stevens
dissenting
michigan
bay
mills
indian
community
thomas
dissenting
slip
see
also
ginsburg
dissenting
slip
dissenting
opinions
explain
tribes
interacting
nontribal
members
outside
reservation
boundaries
subject
nondiscriminatory
state
laws
general
application
agree
however
voluntary
indemnity
undertaking
convert
suit
tribal
employee
employee
individual
capacity
suit
tribe
therefore
concur
judgment
footnotes
currently
federally
recognized
indian
alaska
native
entities
fed
reg
see
also
native
hawaiian
law
treatise
mackenzie
ed
discussing
existing
relationships
government
federally
recognized
tribes
indigenous
groups
cohen
handbook
federal
indian
law
supp
deloria
demallie
documents
american
indian
diplomacy
treaties
agreements
conventions
course
personal
immunity
defenses
distinct
sovereign
immunity
harlow
fitzgerald
clarke
argues
first
time
one
particular
form
personal
immunity
available
official
immunity
see
westfall
erwin
defense
properly
us
however
given
clarke
motion
dismiss
based
solely
tribal
sovereign
immunity
see
travelers
casualty
surety
america
pacific
gas
elec
noted
connecticut
reach
whether
clarke
entitled
sovereign
immunity
basis
indemnification
statute
nevertheless
consider
issue
fairly
included
within
question
presented
purely
legal
question
integral
part
clarke
sovereign
immunity
argument
raised
passed
trial
see
mitchell
forsyth
purely
legal
question
petitioner
claim
immunity
turns
appropriate
immediate
resolution
notwithstanding
addressed
appeals
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
holding
hess
port
authority
corporation
contrary
immunity
question
turned
whether
port
authority
corporation
state
agency
cloaked
eleventh
amendment
immunity
judgment
must
paid
state
treasury
emphasis
added
unlike
hess
damages
judgment
come
sovereign
suit
state
officer
official
rather
individual
capacity
might
implicate
eleventh
amendment
see
kentucky
graham