Editing Nonintercourse Act (section)

====State sovereign immunity====

The structure of the original Constitution and the text of the Eleventh Amendment gives states sovereign immunity from most suits.<ref>See ''Skokomish Indian Tribe v. France'', 269 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1959); see also Katharine F. Nelson, Resolving Native American Land Claims and the Eleventh Amendment: Changing the Balance of Power, 39 Vill. L. Rev. 525 (1994).</ref> There are exceptions: when the state consents to suit; when the federal government abrogates sovereign immunity by statute; when the federal government is the plaintiff or plaintiff-intervenor; and the category authorized by ''[[Ex parte Young]]'' (1908). In several cases, Nonintercourse Act plaintiffs have satisfied one of these exceptions.<ref>''Seneca Nation of Indians v. New York'', 26 F. Supp. 2d 555 (W.D.N.Y. 1998), aff'd, 178 F.3d 95 (2nd Cir. 1999) (US as intervenor); ''United States for and on Behalf of Santa Ana Indian Pueblo v. Univ. of N.M.'', 731 F.2d 703 (10th Cir. 1984) (US as plaintiff); ''[[Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut#Modern relitigation and settlement|Mohegan Tribe v. Connecticut]]'', 528 F. Supp. 1359 (D. Conn. 1982) (holding states counter-claim waived sovereign immunity).</ref> However, the Nonintercourse Act itself does not abrogate state sovereign immunity.<ref>''Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo v. Laney'', 199 F.3d 281 (5th Cir. 2000); see also ''[[Seminole Tribe v. Florida]]'', 517 U.S. 44 (1996).</ref> Moreover, the authority is clear that the ''Ex parte Young'' exception does not apply.<ref>''[[Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho]]'', 521 U.S. 261 (1997); ''Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. County of Oneida'', 617 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2010); ''Western Mohegan Tribe and Nation v. Orange County'', 395 F.3d 18 (2d Cir. 2004); cf. ''Canadian St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians v. New York'', 146 F. Supp.2d 170 (N.D.N.Y. 2001); ''[[Narragansett land claim#Narragansett II|Narragansett Tribe of Indians v. Murphy]]'', 426 F. Supp. 132 (D.R.I. 1976).</ref> Therefore, plaintiffs must obtain the [[intervention (law)|intervention]] of the federal government or relegate themselves to suing local governments and private land owners.<ref>Lauren E. Rosenblatt, Note, Removing the Eleventh Amendment Barrier: Defending Indian Land Title Against State Encroachment After ''Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe'', 78 Tex. L. Rev. 719 (2000).</ref>

Further, in actions against states, Indians are not entitled to the presumption of 25 U.S.C. § 194, which applies only to "persons".<ref>''Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe'', 442 U.S. 653 (1979).</ref>