Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • TOP STORY—USSCt: FTC Can Pursue Challenge to Reverse Payment Agreements Between Drug Makers
    • ADVERTISING—NDIll: Bissell Liable for Falsely Advertising Vacuum Filtration Efficiency
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: High Court Rejects Petition Challenging Indian Tribe's Immunity in Action Brought by Cigarette Vendors
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Supreme Court Will Not Weigh In on Plausibility of Conspiracy Allegations Against Business-to-Business Data Network
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Tesoro Agrees to Petroleum Terminal Divestiture to Settle FTC Acquisition Challenge
    • ANTITRUST—1stCir: Antitrust Claims Fail over Puerto Rican Airplane Refueling Dispute
    • ANTITRUST—EDPenn: $150 Million Settlement Approved in Flonase Antitrust Litigation
    • ANTITRUST—NDTex: Arbitration Clause in User Agreement Forces Arbitration of Claims Against Travelocity
    • INDUSTRY NEWS: Blumenfeld Joins Lowenstein Sandler as Chair of Antitrust Practice
    • INDUSTRY NEWS: Changes in Senior Staff Announced at FTC
    • PRIVACY—SDCal: Text Message Recipients Failed to State Telephone Consumer Protection Act Claims
    • PRIVACY—USSCt: Attorneys’ Solicitation of Clients Not Permissible Use of Personal Information Under Driver’s Privacy Protection Act
    • STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—DMass: Rejection of Settlement Letter Did Not Limit Class Attorney Fee Award
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: High Court Rejects Petition Challenging Indian Tribe's Immunity in Action Brought by Cigarette Vendors, (Jun 17, 2013)

    By Jeffrey May, J.D.

    Cigarette vendors have been denied U.S. Supreme Court review of a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco (705 F.3d 919, 2012-2 Trade Cases ¶78,132), rejecting their antitrust claims against the Puyallup Indian Tribe of Washington Stat ...

    By Jeffrey May, J.D.

    Cigarette vendors have been denied U.S. Supreme Court review of a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco (705 F.3d 919, 2012-2 Trade Cases ¶78,132), rejecting their antitrust claims against the Puyallup Indian Tribe of Washington State based on tribal sovereignty. At issue was whether the tribe, a cigarette retailer in the market, was immune from suits alleging federal antitrust violations. The vendors'petition for certiorari, which was filed on April 9, 2013, was denied today (Miller v. Wright, Dkt. 12-1237).

    In their petition for review, the cigarette vendors asked: (1) whether Indian tribal immunity from suit allows an Indian tribe, a price fixing competitor, to be immune from federal antitrust laws; and (2) whether the officials of an Indian tribe, acting beyond their authority, can be protected by tribal immunity when prospective relief is sought. According to the petition, sovereign immunity must be abrogated where price is willfully applied by a tribe that is a market competitor.

    Left standing is the Ninth Circuit's decision affirming the trial court's dismissal based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the case, which involved cigarette sales in tribal lands. It was held that the tribe did not implicitly waive its sovereign immunity by entering into a cigarette tax contract with Washington State.

    The appellate court also ruled that federal antitrust law did not explicitly abrogate tribal immunity. Abrogation of tribal immunity by Congress had to be expressed in explicit legislation. It could not be implied.

    Neither the Sherman Act nor the Clayton Act unequivocally expressed such abrogation. Nowhere did either statute employ the sort of language held at the federal appellate level to unequivocally abrogate tribal sovereign immunity, according to the appellate court.

    Attorneys: Robert E. Kovacevich for Daniel T. Miller. John Howard Bell for Puyallup Indian Tribe.

    News: Antitrust

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use