The Washington Supreme Court addressed a matter of first impression regarding tribal sovereign immunity in a property dispute between Flying T Ranch, Inc. and the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, issuing an en banc decision on Oct. 9, 2025.
The case centers on nonreservation land purchased by the federally recognized Stillaguamish Tribe, which Flying T Ranch claims it had acquired through adverse possession prior to the Tribe's purchase. Flying T filed suit in Snohomish County Superior Court seeking to quiet title to the disputed property, with Snohomish County named as a defendant.
The superior court dismissed the case with prejudice, ruling that the Tribe's sovereign immunity barred the action. This dismissal prompted Flying T to petition the state's highest court for review.
Writing for the court, Justice Madsen explained the fundamental principles governing tribal sovereign immunity under federal common law. The opinion states that Indian tribes may be sued only under two narrow circumstances: when a tribe voluntarily waives its sovereign immunity or when Congress unequivocally abrogates tribal sovereign immunity through legislation.
The central legal question presented to the Washington Supreme Court was whether a common law immovable property exception could waive tribal sovereign immunity. This issue had not been previously addressed by the court, making it a case of first impression in Washington state jurisprudence.
Tribal sovereign immunity represents a cornerstone principle in federal Indian law, protecting tribal governments from lawsuits in both federal and state courts. This immunity extends beyond reservation boundaries and applies to tribal activities off-reservation, though the scope and application of such immunity in property disputes involving nonreservation land has generated litigation across multiple jurisdictions.
The Stillaguamish Tribe, which received federal recognition, holds the same sovereign status as other federally recognized tribes throughout the United States. This recognition carries significant legal implications, including the right to governmental immunity from suit absent specific exceptions.
Flying T Ranch's adverse possession claim represents a common property law doctrine allowing individuals to acquire title to land through continuous, open, and hostile occupation for a statutory period. However, when such claims intersect with tribal sovereignty principles, complex jurisdictional and immunity questions arise.
The property at issue lies outside any reservation boundaries, adding another layer of complexity to the sovereignty analysis. Courts have grappled with how tribal immunity applies to off-reservation activities and property acquisitions by tribal governments.
Property disputes involving tribal governments have become increasingly common as tribes expand their economic activities and land holdings beyond reservation boundaries. These cases often require courts to balance competing interests: protecting tribal sovereignty while addressing legitimate property rights claims by non-Indian parties.
The superior court's dismissal with prejudice indicated that the trial court found the immunity barrier insurmountable under existing law. Such dismissals prevent refiling of the same claims, making appellate review crucial for the parties' rights.
Snohomish County's role as a defendant reflects the complex jurisdictional issues that arise when local government entities become involved in disputes between private parties and tribal governments. Counties often find themselves caught between competing claims to property within their boundaries.
The en banc nature of the Washington Supreme Court's review signals the significance of the legal issues presented. En banc review involves the full court rather than a panel, typically reserved for cases involving important legal principles or conflicts in existing precedent.
The timing of this decision comes amid broader national discussions about tribal sovereignty, property rights, and the extent of tribal governmental authority in contemporary legal contexts. Federal courts have addressed similar questions, but state supreme court rulings provide important guidance for state-level disputes.
Legal experts in Indian law have noted the increasing frequency of property disputes involving tribal governments as tribes exercise their sovereignty through land acquisition and economic development activities. These cases require careful analysis of federal Indian law principles alongside state property law doctrines.
The Washington Supreme Court's ruling will likely influence future property disputes involving tribal governments throughout the Pacific Northwest and potentially serve as persuasive authority in other jurisdictions facing similar questions.
This case illustrates the ongoing tension between protecting tribal sovereignty and resolving property disputes that arise when tribal activities intersect with non-Indian property rights. The court's analysis of the immovable property exception question will provide guidance for future cases involving similar fact patterns.
The decision affects not only the immediate parties but also establishes precedent for how Washington state courts will address tribal immunity in property-related litigation going forward.