Bryan v. Itasca County

Last updated

Bryan v. Itasca County
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued April 20, 1976
Decided June 14, 1976
Full case nameRussell Bryan v. Itasca County, Minnesota
Citations426 U.S. 373 ( more )
96 S. Ct. 2102; 48 L. Ed. 2d 710; 1976 U.S. LEXIS 61
Case history
PriorBryan v. Itasca County, 228N.W.2d249 (Minn.1975).
Holding
Minnesota did not have the right to assess a tax on the property of an Indian living on tribal land absent a specific Congressional grant of authority to do so
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Potter Stewart
Byron White  · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun  · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist  · John P. Stevens
Case opinion
MajorityBrennan, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
28 U.S.C.   § 1360

Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state did not have the right to assess a tax on the property of a Native American (Indian) living on tribal land absent a specific Congressional grant of authority to do so.

Contents

The case arose when a Minnesota county taxed an Indian's mobile home located on the reservation. The Court ruled that the state did not have the authority to impose such a tax or, more generally, to regulate behavior on the reservation. Bryan has become a landmark case that has led to Indian gaming on reservations and altered the economic status of almost every Indian tribe. Later decisions, citing Bryan, ruled that Public Law 280 allows states to enact prohibitions, or crimes, that would apply on reservations, but could not impose regulations on conduct that was otherwise allowed. The case has also called into question the ability of the states to impose any sort of regulations on tribal reservations, such as labor standards and certain traffic regulations. [1]

Background

Chippewa tribal lands in Minnesota Mnchippewamap.png
Chippewa tribal lands in Minnesota

Background information

Generally, no state has the authority to tax an Indian tribe or an individual Indian living on a reservation without authorization from Congress. [2] [3] This is based primarily on the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which states, "Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." [4] This doctrine is based on Worcester v. Georgia , 31 U.S. 515 (1832) [5] which stated that Indian tribes are considered to be dependent sovereign nations which deal directly with the federal government, and that states have no authority to regulate or control the tribes. Congress can authorize the states to have some control over the tribes. Minnesota is a Public Law 280 state, one where Congress has granted the state total criminal and limited civil jurisdiction on tribal land and reservations. [6]

History

Russell Bryan was an enrolled member of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe, which is a component band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. He married Helen Charwood in 1957. Helen was an enrolled member of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, which was also a part of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. [7] They raised their children on reservation land and lived in a mobile home which they purchased in 1971. The mobile home was located on the Greater Leech Lake Indian Reservation near Squaw Lake in Itasca County, Minnesota. Bryan's mobile home, had it not been on the reservation, would have been subject to taxes from Itasca County. In June 1972, Itasca County notified Bryan that the mobile home was subject to US$147.95 in taxes. [8] The Bryans could not afford to pay the tax, and contacted the Leech Lake Reservation Legal Services Project (Legal Services) for help, noting that the mobile home was on Indian land. [7]

Lower courts

On behalf of Bryan, Legal Services attorney Patrick Moriarty then sued the state and Itasca County in the District Court of Itasca County, seeking declaratory relief and an injunction which would prevent the state and county from collecting taxes from Indians on tribal land. [7] This was filed as a class action suit. There was no dispute as to the facts of the case, so the matter was submitted as a question of law to Judge James F. Murphy. In 1973, the district court held that the state and county were authorized to collect such taxes under Public Law 280. Murphy noted that while the Chippewa had at one time been a sovereign Indian nation, their members were now citizens of Minnesota and received benefits from the state such as county services, the court system, and other like services. [7]

At about the same time as the district court made its decision, Legal Services hired a new director, Gerald "Jerry" Seck. Seck was not well versed on Indian law, so he contacted the Native American Rights Fund (NARF). With their help, Bryan appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court. The Minnesota Chippewa tribe and the United States both filed amicus curae briefs with the court that supported Bryan's position, and NARF attorneys appeared on his behalf. [7] In March 1975, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court by a unanimous decision, holding that Public Law 280 showed Congressional intent to allow such taxation. [1] [9] The Minnesota Supreme Court based its decision primarily on Omaha Tribe of Indians v. Peters, 382 F.Supp. 421 (D. Neb. 1974). [10] Bryan appealed this decision, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. [1]

Opinion of the Court

Justice William Brennan, author of the unanimous opinion US Supreme Court Justice William Brennan - 1976 official portrait.jpg
Justice William Brennan, author of the unanimous opinion

Arguments

By the time the appeal was prepared, Seck had left Legal Services but was still the attorney of record. The tribe paid to fly him to Washington, D.C. to prepare the brief with Dan Israel of NARF and Bernie Becker, the tribe's attorney who would argue the case before the Supreme Court. At oral arguments on April 20, 1976, Becker pointed out that Public Law 280 gave the state jurisdiction over criminal matters and civil "causes of actions" – a legal term for lawsuits. Since Congress had also passed other Indian laws at the same time, such as the various Indian Termination Acts, which specifically authorized states to collect taxes from Indians, its silence in this area meant Congress did not intend to do so with Public Law 280. Becker brought up the leading article on Public Law 280, by UCLA law professor Carole Goldberg, that argued that the law was established to address the problem of crime on reservations. He also noted that tribes which had adequate law-and-order processes, such as the Red Lake Band of Chippewa, were excluded from state jurisdiction in Minnesota. Arguing for the State of Minnesota was C. H. Luther of the State Attorney General's office. Luther argued four points for the tax being valid: a) the language of the statute; b) the legislative history of Public Law 280; c) prior judicial opinions; and d) public policy. Luther conceded that if the trailer was a fixed house or real property, it would be exempt from taxation. Luther also stated that other taxes – such as gasoline, sales, income and other taxes of general applicability – would apply to Indians. [7]

Unanimous opinion

Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. delivered the unanimous opinion of the court on June 14, 1976. Brennan stated that Public Law 280 was not designed to eliminate all restrictions on the states as they dealt with Indian tribes. Brennan noted that under the Supreme Court's prior decisions of Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones , 411 U.S. 145 (1973) [11] and McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n , 411 U.S. 164 (1973), [12] states had no authority to tax Indians "absent Congressional consent." [11] Since Itasca County was claiming Public Law 280 granted that consent, Brennan evaluated the statute in regards to the taxation of Indians. [1]

Brennan noted that the Minnesota Supreme Court had found that the statute did grant the right to tax personal property as an inherent power, even though the law did not specifically mention the power to tax. He rejected this argument, noting that the primary purpose of the law was to provide for "state criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians on the reservations." [1] Nothing in the legislative history of the law provided support for Itasca County's interpretation. Brennan also noted that the several tribal termination acts which were considered at the same time specifically discussed the taxation of Indians, while Public Law 280 was silent. [1]

Brennan then noted that the principles of statutory construction as regards to Indians were very specific. Any differences in possible interpretation must be resolved in favor of the tribe or the Indian. Since Minnesota's interpretation did not meet any of these tests regarding either the consent of Congress to tax or of statutory construction, Brennan stated that the Supreme Court would not follow the state's reasoning, and reversed the lower court's decision. [1]

Subsequent developments

A tribal casino Skokomish Casino Lucky Dog.JPG
A tribal casino

When the decision was announced, it was reported as a substantial victory for Indians by both the local and national press. [13] [14] [15] Bryan is a landmark case [16] on the taxation of Indians and tribal sovereignty, having been cited over 380 times as of July 2010. The case has had a significant impact on Indian gaming with its broad holding that Public Law 280 did not confer "general state civil regulatory control over Indian reservations." [7] This ruling in a challenge to a tax bill of under $200 had the effect of enabling Indian tribes nationwide to earn over $200 billion in gaming revenue as of 2007. [8] [17] The first cases influenced by Bryan involved bingo, which many states allowed, but regulated. The cases which were decided all cited Bryan in holding that the various states had no legal grounds to regulate games on tribal land. [18] Many analysts point to the Bryan case as being the grounds upon which California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 480 U.S. 202 (1987) [19] was decided. The Supreme Court noted that California was not able to impose civil regulations against an Indian tribe on tribal land. [20] In that case, the court noted that California not only allowed gaming, but promoted its own state lottery. Therefore, the prohibition against gaming was regulatory in nature, not criminal, [7] [18] notwithstanding the fact that the games were open to non-Indians as well as Indians. [21] After the decision, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to provide for a system of regulation of the Indian gaming industry. [22]

The case is often cited to support the concept which first "coalesced" in the 1968 case, Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States , 391 U.S. 404 (1968), [23] that tribal rights would not be abrogated without an explicit intent of Congress to do so. [24] It has been opined by a number of legal scholars that tribes would not be subject to state labor laws. [25] [26] In some instances, Bryan and Cabazon have been viewed as not allowing the state jurisdiction over the traffic violations of non-member Indians on another tribe's reservation. [27] Bryan is extensively discussed in both major legal textbooks on Native American law [28] [29] and in numerous other high school and college texts. [17] [24]

Related Research Articles

Native American gaming Gambling operations on Indian reservations in the United States

Native American gaming comprises casinos, bingo halls, and other gambling operations on Indian reservations or other tribal lands in the United States. Because these areas have tribal sovereignty, states have limited ability to forbid gambling there, as codified by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. As of 2011, there were 460 gambling operations run by 240 tribes, with a total annual revenue of $27 billion.

Tribal sovereignty in the United States Type of political status of Native Americans

Tribal sovereignty in the United States is the concept of the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States. Originally, the U.S. federal government recognized American Indian tribes as independent nations, and came to policy agreements with them via treaties. As the U.S. accelerated its westward expansion, internal political pressure grew for "Indian removal", but the pace of treaty-making grew nevertheless. Then the Civil War forged the U.S. into a more centralized and nationalistic country, fueling a "full bore assault on tribal culture and institutions", and pressure for Native Americans to assimilate. In the Indian Appropriations Act of 1871, without any input from Native Americans, Congress prohibited any future treaties. This move was steadfastly opposed by Native Americans. Currently, the U.S. recognizes tribal nations as "domestic dependent nations" and uses its own legal system to define the relationship between the federal, state, and tribal governments.

Indian reservation Land managed by Native American nations under the US Bureau of Indian Affairs

An Indian reservation is an area of land tenure governed by a federally recognized Native American tribal nation under the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, rather than by the government of the state in which it is located. The 326 Indian reservations in the United States are associated with specific Native American nations, often on a one-to-one basis. Some of the country's 574 federally recognized tribes govern more than one reservation, while some share reservations, and others have no reservation at all. In addition, because of past land allotments, leading to sales to non–Native Americans, some reservations are severely fragmented, with each piece of tribal, individual, and privately held land being a separate enclave. This jumble of private and public real estate creates significant administrative, political and legal difficulties.

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that Article One of the U.S. Constitution did not give the United States Congress the power to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states that is further protected under the Eleventh Amendment. Such abrogation is permitted where it is necessary to enforce the rights of citizens guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment as per Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer. The case also held that the doctrine of Ex parte Young, which allows state officials to be sued in their official capacity for prospective injunctive relief, was inapplicable under these circumstances, because any remedy was limited to the one that Congress had provided.

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians

The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians is a Native American tribe of Ojibwa and Métis peoples, based on the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation in Belcourt, North Dakota. The tribe has 30,000 enrolled members. A population of 5,815 reside on the main reservation and another 2,516 reside on off-reservation trust land. It is federally recognized and Jamie Azure is the current Tribal Chairman elected for 2016 to 2018 - 2018 to 2020 - 2020 to 2022 terms.

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is a 1988 United States federal law that establishes the jurisdictional framework that governs Indian gaming. There was no federal gaming structure before this act. The stated purposes of the act include providing a legislative basis for the operation/regulation of Indian gaming, protecting gaming as a means of generating revenue for the tribes, encouraging economic development of these tribes, and protecting the enterprises from negative influences. The law established the National Indian Gaming Commission and gave it a regulatory mandate. The law also delegated new authority to the U.S. Department of the Interior and created new federal offenses, giving the U.S. Department of Justice authority to prosecute them.

Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court concluded that Indian tribes could not prosecute Indians who were members of other tribes for crimes committed by those nonmember Indians on their reservations. The decision was not well received by the tribes, because it defanged their criminal codes by depriving them of the power to enforce them against anyone except their own members. In response, Congress amended a section of the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1301, to include the power to "exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians" as one of the powers of self-government.

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Butterworth, 658 F.2d 310, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit case that significantly influenced the development of modern Indian Gaming law. In Seminole Tribe, the Fifth Circuit ruled that the State of Florida did not have authority to enforce the Florida Bingo Statute on the Seminole Tribe of Florida's reservation, even though Florida is a Public Law 280 state with special rights to extend criminal and limited civil jurisdiction over Indian Country. Because of the decision, the Seminole Tribe was able to build and operate the nation's first tribally-owned high-stakes bingo parlor on their reservation in Florida, even though bingo for profit was illegal under Florida law at the time. Many other tribes later followed the Seminole Tribe's lead by building their own bingo parlors on their reservations, leading many scholars to call the Seminole Tribe's victory in this case the "birth" of modern commercial gambling on reservations.

California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the development of Native American gaming. The Supreme Court's decision effectively overturned the existing laws restricting gaming/gambling on U.S. Indian reservations.

United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court landmark case which held that both the United States and a Native American (Indian) tribe could prosecute an Indian for the same acts that constituted crimes in both jurisdictions. The Court held that the United States and the tribe were separate sovereigns; therefore, separate tribal and federal prosecutions did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Menominee Tribe v. United States, 391 U.S. 404 (1968), is a case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Menominee Indian Tribe kept their historical hunting and fishing rights even after the federal government ceased to recognize the tribe. It was a landmark decision in Native American case law.

Aboriginal title in the United States First country to recognize aboriginal title

The United States was the first jurisdiction to acknowledge the common law doctrine of aboriginal title. Native American tribes and nations establish aboriginal title by actual, continuous, and exclusive use and occupancy for a "long time." Individuals may also establish aboriginal title, if their ancestors held title as individuals. Unlike other jurisdictions, the content of aboriginal title is not limited to historical or traditional land uses. Aboriginal title may not be alienated, except to the federal government or with the approval of Congress. Aboriginal title is distinct from the lands Native Americans own in fee simple and occupy under federal trust.

Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States holding that an Indian tribe has the authority to impose taxes on non-Indians that are conducting business on the reservation as an inherent power under their tribal sovereignty.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife v. Klamath Indian Tribe, 473 U.S. 753 (1985), was a case appealed to the US Supreme Court by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Supreme Court reversed the previous decisions in the District Court and the Court of Appeals stating that the exclusive right to hunt, fish, and gather roots, berries, and seeds on the lands reserved to the Klamath Tribe by the 1864 Treaty was not intended to survive as a special right to be free of state regulation in the ceded lands that were outside the reservation after the 1901 Agreement.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to United States federal Indian law and policy:

Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Indians, 546 U.S. 95 (2005), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state's non-discriminatory fuel tax imposed on off-reservation distributors does not pose an affront to a tribe's sovereignty.

Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463 (1979), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the State of Washington's imposition of partial jurisdiction over certain actions on an Indian reservation, when not requested by the tribe, was valid under Public Law 280.

Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Sac & Fox Nation, 508 U.S. 114 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that absent explicit congressional direction to the contrary, it must be presumed that a State does not have jurisdiction to tax tribal members who live and work in Indian country, whether the particular territory consists of a formal or informal reservation, allotted lands, or dependent Indian communities.

Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the State of Arizona does not have jurisdiction to try a civil case between a non-Indian doing business on a reservation with tribal members who reside on the reservation, the proper forum for such cases being the tribal court.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373 (1976). PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. ↑ Cases & Codes: U.S. Constitution (annotated): Art. I, Annotations p. 35 , FindLaw (Aug. 4, 2010).
  3. ↑ Congressional Research Service Annotated Constitution, art. I , Legal Information Institute (Aug. 4, 2010).
  4. ↑ U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3.
  5. ↑ Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832).
  6. ↑ Pub. L. No. 83-280, 67  Stat.   588 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C.   § 1162 and 28 U.S.C.   § 1360).
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Kevin K. Washburn, The Legacy of Bryan v. Itasca County: How an Erroneous $ 147 County Tax Notice Helped Bring Tribes $ 200 Billion in Indian Gaming Revenue92 Minn. L. Rev. 919 (2008).
  8. 1 2 Kevin K. Washburn, Bryan v. Itasca County: Changing the stakes for Minnesota Indians, in Minnesota 150: The People, Places, and Things That Shape Our State 21 (Kate Roberts ed., 2007).
  9. ↑ Bryan v. Itasca County, 228N.W.2d249 (Minn.1975)..
  10. ↑ Omaha Tribe of Indians v. Peters, 382 F. Supp. 421 (D. Neb. 1974), vacated by Omaha Tribe of Indians v. Peters, 427 U.S. 902 (1976).
  11. 1 2 Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145 (1973).
  12. ↑ McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 411 U.S. 164 (1973).
  13. ↑ Justices Bar State's Taxation of Reservation Indians, N.Y. Times, Jun. 15, 1976 at 19.
  14. ↑ State Forbidden to Tax on Reservations, Minneapolis Tribune, Jun. 15, 1976 at 1A.
  15. ↑ Court Limits Taxing on Reservations, St. Paul Pioneer Press, Jun. 15, 1976 at 14.
  16. ↑ National Indian Law Library, Landmark Indian Law Cases 263 (2002).
  17. 1 2 Bryan H. Wildenthal, Native American Sovereignty on Trial: A Handbook with Cases, Laws, and Documents 103 (2003).
  18. 1 2 Kevin D. Arnold, The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and the Constitution: the Eleventh Amendment's impact on Indian gaming and entrepreneurship, 21 T. Marshall L. Rev. 205 (1995).
  19. ↑ California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians , 480 U.S. 202 (1987).
  20. ↑ Duane Champagne, Social Change and Cultural Continuity Among Native Nations 183 (2007).
  21. ↑ Keith David Bilezerian, Ante Up or Fold: States Attempt to Play Their Hand While Indian Casinos Cash In, 29 New Eng. L. Rev. 463 (1995).
  22. ↑ Larry D. Strate & Ann M. Mayo, Federal Control of Indian Lands v. State Control of Gaming - Cabazon Bingo and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act6 J. of Gambling Studies 63 (1990).
  23. ↑ Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States , 391 U.S. 404 (1968).
  24. 1 2 Wilkinson, Charles F. (1988). American Indians, time, and the law: native societies in a modern constitutional democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. pp. 48–52. ISBN   978-0-300-04136-1.
  25. ↑ William G. Rice, Employment in Indian Country: Considerations Respecting Tribal Regulation of the Employer-Employee Relationship, 72 N. Dak. L. Rev. 267 (1996).
  26. ↑ Kaighn Smith, Jr., Labor and Employment Laws in Indian Country: Tribal self-determination and judicial restraint, 2008 Mich. St. L. Rev. 505 (2008).
  27. ↑ Emmerson H. Ward, Sovereignty Revisited: The Dilemma with State Jurisdiction Over Nonmember Indians in State v. R.M.H., 617 N.W.2d 55 (Minn. 2000), 24 Hamline L. Rev. 251 (2001).
  28. ↑ Robert N. Clinton, Carole E. Goldberg, & Rebecca Tsosie, American Indian Law : Native Nations and the Federal System : Cases and Materials 885-90 (4th ed. 2003).
  29. ↑ David H. Getches, Charles F. Wilkinson, & Robert A. Williams, Cases and Materials on Federal Indian Law 499-504 (5th ed. 2005).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.