Idaho, et al. v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe of Idaho, etc., et al.
The Court held that the Coeur d'Alene Tribe could not maintain an action against the state of Idaho to press its claim to Lake Coeur d'Alene due to the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit, notwithstanding the exception recognized in Ex parte Young.
521 U.S. 261 · No. 94-1474 · 1996 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided Jun 23, 1997 · argued Oct 16, 1996
Federalism · National supremacy: natural resources
Majority opinion: Anthony Kennedy
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded. Idaho, et al. won.
What this ruling means
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded: the Supreme Court upheld part of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, overturned or set aside the rest, and sent the case back for further proceedings that follow its ruling.
Idaho, et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Coeur d'Alene Tribe could not maintain an action against the state of Idaho to press its claim to Lake Coeur d'Alene due to the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit, notwithstanding the exception recognized in Ex parte Young. The case was an important precedent for aboriginal title in the United States and sovereign immunity in the United States.
After the district court's decision dismissing the suit, the federal government—in its guardian capacity—brought a substantially similar suit against Idaho; in 2001, in 5–4 decision, the Court ruled for the federal government: Idaho v. United States (2001).
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1996 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Anthony KennedyWrote the majority opinion
Sandra O'ConnorWrote a concurrence
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Antonin ScaliaJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
David SouterWrote a dissent
John StevensJoined a dissent
Stephen BreyerJoined a dissent
Ruth GinsburgJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Idaho, et al.State (Idaho)
- Respondent
- Coeur D'Alene Tribe of Idaho, etc., et al.Indian
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Eleventh Amendment
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- Decided by
- Judicial review (state level)
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 23, 1997DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded. Idaho, et al. won.
- Oct 16, 1996ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Idaho U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
4 other argued cases since 1946 on national supremacy: natural resources, newest first.
- South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke, Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources of Alaska, et al.467 U.S. 82May 22, 1984 · 467 U.S. 82Federalism6–27–2 band
- Sporhase et al. v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas, Attorney General458 U.S. 941Jul 2, 1982 · 458 U.S. 941Federalism7–27–2 band
- Hughes v. Oklahoma441 U.S. 322Apr 24, 1979 · 441 U.S. 322Federalism7–27–2 band
- United States v. Grand River Dam Authority363 U.S. 229Jun 13, 1960 · 363 U.S. 229Federalism9–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.