In relation to Native American tribes, the idea of sovereign immunity is referred to as "tribal immunity." According to court decisions, Congress cannot have comprehensive jurisdiction over tribes under the Indian Commerce Clause unless it agrees to any litigation against a tribe. However, the concept of tribal immunity was developed by courts rather than politicians.
A Supreme Court justice has questioned whether tribal immunity is still applicable and stated that it would need to be reevaluated in the future, underscoring the need for a more thorough investigation of the idea. The Supreme Court created the idea in the United States v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. ruling, ruling that Indian tribes are exempt from lawsuits unless Congress gives permission. The two main grounds for this exception, according to the Court, are the protection of tribal resources and the recognition of tribes as independent entities.
As the Court has emphasized in recent years, tribes are nonetheless endowed with all sovereign powers until specifically abrogated by Congress or proven to be inconsistent with their status. It is believed that they possess these types of talents naturally because of their restricted sovereignty. The Supreme Court has cited other cases that amply illustrate the crucial notion, even if it did not directly state it as a basis. Unlike the immunity of states, the federal government, and foreign nations, tribal immunity is unrestricted. Courts still use a broad interpretation of this doctrine, often declaring that a defendant—whether a state, local government, the federal government, or a foreign country—would be sued in state or federal courts.
For example, courts have often held that a tribe's immunity can only be waived with the tribe's or Congress's express consent. Implied exemptions are not usually upheld, in contrast to other governments, especially when tribal people do business on or off reservations. Purchasing insurance does not grant immunity as well. Tribal immunity therefore goes beyond that granted to states, the Native American tribes are not treated differently from other sovereign organizations when it comes to their economic or governmental activity. According to court rulings, it makes no difference if a tribe runs governmental, commercial, or private businesses. As such, tribal immunity continues to be more extensive than that of any other sovereign.

Question

cdquestions Admin · Accepted Answer

""

According to the passage, which of the following statements about tribal immunity is NOT true?

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

Based on the passage, which statement provides the most plausible explanation for why the doctrine of tribal immunity has not been subject to more scrutiny or restriction?

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Suppose a new Supreme Court decision re-examined the grounds for tribal immunity, focusing on protecting tribal resources as a less significant factor. How would this development impact the interpretation of tribal immunity discussed in the passage?

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

In the context of the passage, the phrase "proprietary acts" most likely refers to:

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Top Questions on Reading Comprehension

Questions Asked in CAT exam