The Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren case in 2017 revolved around a land dispute between the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe and the Lundgren family. The tribe purchased a piece of land adjacent to property owned by the Lundgrens, but later discovered that part of what they thought was their new property had been used by the Lundgrens for decades. The tribe filed suit claiming ownership, while the Lundgrens argued adverse possession - essentially stating that since they'd openly used this portion of land without contestation for years, it should be legally considered theirs. Initially, Washington's Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Lundgrens based on an exception to tribal sovereign immunity involving immovable property disputes (the immovable-property exception). However, when brought before U.S Supreme Court, it vacated this decision due to lack of precedent supporting such an exemption within American law and sent back down for further proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE v. LUNDGREN, Justice Thomas argued that the court should have adhered to its previous ruling in County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation (1992), which held that Indian tribes do not possess sovereign immunity from suits involving real property disputes under state law. He contended that the majority's decision to remand the case back to Washington State Supreme Court was unnecessary as it had already been established in prior cases like City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197, 213 (2005) and Cass County v Leech Lake Band Of Chippewa Indians, 524 U.S., at 114–115; Atkinson Trading Co., Inc.v.Shirley,532U.S.,at659–660(2001). In his view, these precedents clearly indicate tribal sovereignty does not extend beyond what is necessary "to protect tribal self-government or control internal relations." Therefore he believed Upper Skagit Tribe did not enjoy immunity from a lawsuit over land ownership dispute.