## Facts

- Brian and Michelle Lewis, nonmembers of the Mohegan Tribe, were injured in a vehicle collision on Interstate 95 in Connecticut.
- William Clarke, a Mohegan Tribe member and employee of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority, was driving a tribe-owned limousine transporting casino patrons when he rear-ended the Lewises’ car off reservation; Clarke’s fault was not disputed.
- The Lewises sued Clarke in Connecticut state court for negligence, seeking money damages from him in his individual capacity; they did not sue the Tribe or the Gaming Authority.
- Mohegan tribal law included an indemnification provision requiring the Gaming Authority to indemnify employees for certain negligence judgments arising from acts within the scope of employment, subject to exceptions for wanton, reckless, or malicious conduct.
- The Connecticut trial court denied Clarke’s motion to dismiss on tribal sovereign immunity grounds; the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed, holding immunity applied because Clarke acted within the scope of employment and indemnification made the Tribe the real party in interest.

## Issues

1. Whether tribal sovereign immunity bars a state-court tort suit seeking damages from a tribal employee in his individual capacity for acts within the scope of tribal employment.
2. Whether a tribe’s obligation to indemnify the employee makes the tribe the real party in interest such that sovereign immunity applies.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- Tribal sovereign immunity did not bar the Lewises’ suit because it was an individual-capacity action against Clarke for his own conduct, and the Tribe was not the real party in interest.
- Clarke’s scope of employment did not, by itself, convert the suit into one against the Tribe.
- The Gaming Authority’s indemnification obligation did not extend sovereign immunity to Clarke and did not change the immunity analysis.
- The Court did not decide whether Clarke could assert a personal immunity defense (such as official immunity) because that contention was not properly presented.

## Legal Principles

- Sovereign immunity turns on whether the sovereign is the real party in interest, assessed by the capacity in which the defendant is sued and the relief sought.
- Official-capacity suits operate as suits against the sovereign and may be barred by sovereign immunity; individual-capacity suits seek personal liability and are not barred by sovereign immunity, though personal defenses may be available.
- Tribal sovereign immunity does not automatically extend to tribal employees sued in their individual capacities for torts committed within the scope of employment.
- A tribal indemnification provision cannot, as a matter of law, transform an individual-capacity suit into a suit against the tribe or extend tribal sovereign immunity to an employee who otherwise lacks it.

## Conclusion

The Court held that tribal sovereign immunity does not prevent state-court negligence claims against a tribal employee sued personally for off-reservation conduct, even when tribal law may require a tribal entity to indemnify any resulting judgment.


Lewis v. Clarke, 137 S. Ct. 1285 (2017)