Washington state Supreme Court: Tribes can’t be sued

Published 1:30 am Thursday, October 16, 2025

The Washington Supreme Court has ruled Indian tribes can’t be sued, leaving residents involved in legal disputes with tribes unable to pursue their claims in state courts.

The high court said in an 8-0 opinion Oct. 9 that only Congress can waive a tribe’s immunity from lawsuits. The case stemmed from a minor property dispute between the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians and the Flying T Ranch in Snohomish County.

“Tribal sovereign immunity is broad,” Justice Barbara Madsen wrote for the court. “For example, a tribe’s immunity from suit extends to contracts, whether involving governmental or commercial activities and whether they are made on or off a reservation.”

The tribe bought land along the Sillaguamish River in 2021 for salmon habitat. The Flying T claimed it owned part of the land by virtue of grazing cattle on 2 acres since at least 1961.

Washington law awards ownership to anyone who openly uses and pays taxes on land for seven straight years. The high court ruled the law doesn’t apply to tribes, even if the land is off a reservation.

“We’re pleased with the state Supreme Court’s ruling. This affirmation of tribal sovereignty and the acknowledgement of our ability to self-govern is incredibly important,” Stillaguamish council operations coordinator Rebecca Shannon said in an email.

Ranch owner Tammy Blakey said the strip of land is not worth a lot of money, but worth fighting for.

“It’s only a small sliver of land, but this decision could have huge ramifications,” she said. “It’s not good for Washingtonians.”

Foreign countries also are immune from lawsuits in state courts. Tribal rights go even further, Madsen wrote. Although the state has a fundamental interest in settling land disputes within its boundaries, Congress has not repealed tribal sovereignty, she said.

The high court decision upheld rulings by the Snohomish County Superior Court and the Court of Appeals Division 1.

Appeals Court Judge Stephen Dwyer agreed only Congress can waive a tribe’s immunity from lawsuits, but warned at a hearing that not submitting disputes to courts means “returning to the 19th century and resorting to warfare.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on the scope of tribal sovereign immunity. It came close in 2018 in a dispute over 1 acre in Skagit County, but decided to rule on other grounds.

Four justices — including current Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — said the court should have taken up the issue.

“The correct answer cannot be that the tribe always wins no matter what; otherwise a tribe could wield sovereign immunity as a sword and seize property with impunity, even without a colorable claim of right,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.

Blakey said she just reseeded the 2 acres and does not plan to stop using it. She said she’s not sure whether she will pursue her claim in federal court.

“It needs to go to the U.S. Supreme Court,” she said.

Justice Salvador Mungia, the state high court’s newest member, said he agreed with the ruling, but issued a separate opinion to condemn federal law and courts for treating tribes as wards.

“While it is certainly necessary to follow federal case law on issues involving Native American tribes and their members, at the same time it is important to call out that the very foundations of those opinions were based on racism and white supremacy,” he wrote.