Case: 20-10173 Date Filed: 08/10/2020 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-10173
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:19-cv-62591-BB
EGLISE BAPTISTE BETHANIE DE FT. LAUDERDALE, INC.,
a Florida Not-For-Profit Corporation,
ANDY SAINT-REMY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA,
AIDE AUGUSTE,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 10, 2020)
Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 20-10173 Date Filed: 08/10/2020 Page: 2 of 6
Before the district court, Eglise Baptise Bethanie De Ft. Lauderdale, Inc.,
and Andy Saint-Remy (plaintiffs) sued the Seminole Tribe of Florida and Aide
Auguste (defendants), alleging various causes of action including claims under 18
U.S.C. § 248. The Tribe moved for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that, because it
is a federally recognized Indian tribe, it was entitled to tribal sovereign immunity.
Auguste sought dismissal as well and argued, in part, that the plaintiffs’ allegations
involved non-justiciable questions of internal church governance. The district
court agreed with the defendants and dismissed the action. This appeal followed.
We affirm the district court.
DISCUSSION
I.
We write for the benefit of the parties and thus assume their familiarity with
the facts. Turning to the merits, we consider first the district court’s dismissal of
the plaintiffs’ claims against the Tribe. We review a district court’s dismissal of a
complaint due to tribal sovereign immunity de novo. Furry v. Miccosukee Tribe of
Indians of Fla.,
685 F.3d 1224, 1227–28 (11th Cir. 2012).
“Indian tribes benefit from the same common-law immunity from suit
traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers.” Williams v. Poarch Band of Creek
Indians,
839 F.3d 1312, 1317 (11th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation mark omitted).
2
Case: 20-10173 Date Filed: 08/10/2020 Page: 3 of 6
However, tribal sovereign immunity is not absolute; tribes are “domestic
dependent nations” and “are subject to plenary control by Congress.” Michigan v.
Bay Mills Indian Cmty.,
572 U.S. 782, 788 (2014). Therefore, suits against tribal
entities are barred by tribal sovereign immunity, “unless the plaintiff shows either a
clear waiver of that immunity by the tribe, or an express abrogation of the doctrine
by Congress.”
Williams, 839 F.3d at 1317.
Here, the underlying suit fails to satisfy either prerequisite and is thus
barred. First, everyone agrees Seminole Tribe did not expressly waive immunity
from suit. See Sanderlin v. Seminole Tribe of Fla.,
243 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir.
2001) (“[W]aivers of tribal sovereign immunity cannot be implied on the basis of a
tribe’s actions, but must be unequivocally expressed.”). And second, § 248 does
not evidence any clear and unequivocal Congressional intent to abrogate tribal
sovereign immunity. See
Furry, 685 F.3d at 1233 (“[C]ongressional abrogation
must come from ‘the definitive language of the statute itself’[;] . . . ‘legislative
history and inferences from general statutory language are insufficient.’”).
That the plaintiffs allege criminal violations under § 248 cannot change our
conclusion; where tribal sovereign immunity applies, it “bars actions against tribes
regardless of the type of relief sought.” Freemanville Water Sys., Inc. v. Poarch
Band of Creek Indians,
563 F.3d 1205, 1208 (11th Cir. 2009). Also unavailing is
the plaintiffs’ contention that tribal sovereign immunity is inapplicable here
3
Case: 20-10173 Date Filed: 08/10/2020 Page: 4 of 6
because the alleged conduct occurred off-reservation. “To date, [the Supreme
Court has] sustained tribal immunity from suit without drawing a distinction based
on where the tribal activities occurred” nor has the Court “drawn a distinction
between governmental and commercial activities of a tribe.” Kiowa Tribe of Okla.
v. Mfg. Techs., Inc.,
523 U.S. 751, 754–55 (1998); see also Bay Mills Indian
Cmty.,
572 U.S. at 800 (discussing Kiowa and quoting its relevant holding).
In short, Congress knows how to expressly subject an Indian tribe to private
suit in state or federal court; it did not do so when it enacted § 248. See
Furry, 685
F.3d at 1233. Seminole Tribe is entitled to tribal sovereign immunity and was
appropriately dismissed from this suit.
II.
Next, we turn to the plaintiffs’ claims against Auguste. We review de novo
a district court’s legal conclusions underlying its dismissal of a complaint for lack
of jurisdiction, and we review the district court’s “findings of jurisdictional facts
for clear error.” Houston v. Marod Supermarkets, Inc.,
733 F.3d 1323, 1328 (11th
Cir. 2013).
“[R]eligious controversies are not the proper subject of civil court inquiry.”
Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese for U.S. and Can. v. Milivojevich,
426 U.S. 696, 713
(1976). We have long recognized that both the Establishment and Free Exercise
Clauses require a “prohibition on judicial cognizance of ecclesiastical disputes.”
4
Case: 20-10173 Date Filed: 08/10/2020 Page: 5 of 6
Crowder v. S. Baptist Convention,
828 F.2d 718, 721 (11th Cir. 1987). “By
adjudicating religious disputes, civil courts risk affecting associational conduct and
thereby chilling the free exercise of religious beliefs.”
Id. And “by entering into a
religious controversy and putting the enforcement power of the state behind a
particular religious faction, a civil court risks ‘establishing’ a religion.”
Id.
The interplay between these two constitutional provisions generally requires
that we refrain from adjudicating matters involving “theological controversy,
church discipline, ecclesiastical government, or the conformity of the members of
the church to the standard of morals required of them.”
Id. at 722. Moreover, we
“are bound to accept the decisions of the highest judicatories of a religious
organization of hierarchical polity on matters of discipline, faith, internal
organization, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law.”
Milivojevich, 426 U.S. at 713.
The plaintiffs claim that the district court erred in dismissing the claims
against Auguste because their claim—rather than involving ecclesiastical
disputes—is merely a property dispute. That framing ignores two threshold issues.
Before reaching the plaintiffs’ § 248 claim, a court would need to determine
whether Auguste was the rightful successor to the church’s leadership and, if she
was, whether Auguste had the authority to exclude the plaintiffs from the church’s
property. Answering these questions would require us to inquire into church rules,
policies, and decision-making and questions of church governance are manifestly
5
Case: 20-10173 Date Filed: 08/10/2020 Page: 6 of 6
ecclesiastical. See
id. at 717 (“[Q]uestions of church discipline and the
composition of the church hierarchy are at the core of ecclesiastical concern.”).
Auguste’s decision to exclude the plaintiffs from church property and the
related events are part and parcel of ecclesiastical concerns (e.g., matters of church
governance, administration, and membership). The adjudication of these issues
would “excessively entangl[e] [us] in questions of ecclesiastical doctrine or
belief”—the very types of questions we are commanded to avoid. See
Crowder,
828 F.2d at 722 (footnote omitted).
Summed up, the district court correctly determined that it could not
adjudicate the claim against Auguste because the dispute was “strictly and purely
ecclesiastical in its character.” See
Milivojevich, 426 U.S. at 713. The claim
against Auguste was appropriately dismissed.
We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’
complaint.
6
