Kerr-McGee Corp. v. Navajo Tribe

Last updated
Kerr-McGee v. Navajo Tribe
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued February 25, 1985
Decided April 16, 1985
Full case nameKerr-McGee Corp. v. Navajo Tribe of Indians
Citations471 U.S. 195 ( more )
105 S. Ct. 1900; 85 L. Ed. 2d 200; 1985 U.S. LEXIS 2738
Case history
Prior731 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1984); cert. granted, 469 U.S. 879(1984).
Holding
An Indian tribe is not required to obtain the approval of the Secretary of the Interior in order to impose taxes on non-tribal persons or entities doing business on a reservation
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinion
MajorityBurger, joined by Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor
Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
25 U.S.C.   § 461

Kerr-McGee v. Navajo Tribe, 471 U.S. 195 (1985), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an Indian tribe is not required to obtain the approval of the Secretary of the Interior in order to impose taxes on non-tribal persons or entities doing business on a reservation.

Contents

Background

Map of Navajo reservation DineBikeyahBe'elyaigii.svg
Map of Navajo reservation

History

The Navajo Tribe is an Indian (Native American) tribe with a reservation occupying parts of Arizona, Utah and New Mexico. In 1978, the tribal council passed two taxing ordinances. [1] The first was a tax of 3% on leaseholds (such as mineral rights) and the second was a 5% tax on business activity. The tribe forwarded the ordinances to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in the Department of the Interior for approval. The BIA informed the tribe that there was no law that required federal approval for a tribal tax. [2] [3]

Lower courts

Kerr-McGee held substantial mineral rights in the reservation and filed a lawsuit in the federal district court seeking an injunction to prohibit the tribe from collecting the tax. Kerr-McGee argued that any tax of non-Indians by a tribe required approval by the Secretary of the Interior and the district court agreed, granting the injunction. The tribe appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit overruled the district court, finding no federal statute or regulation required such approval. Kerr-McGee then appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari and agreed to hear the case. [2] [3]

Decision

Chief Justice Warren Burger, author of the unanimous opinion Warren e burger photo.jpeg
Chief Justice Warren Burger, author of the unanimous opinion

Arguments

Alvin H. Shrago argued the case for Kerr-McGee. Elizabeth Bernstein argued the case for the tribe. The United States argued the case on behalf of the tribe. Amicus curiae briefs were filed in support of Kerr-McGee by the Arizona Public Service Co., the Peabody Coal Co., the Phillips Petroleum Co., the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District and Texaco, Inc. Amicus curiae briefs were filed in support of the tribe by Association on American Indian Affairs and for the Shoshone Indian Tribe Reservation. [2]

Kerr-McGee argued that the Indian Reorganization Act [4] (IRA) required the Secretary of the Interior to approve any tribal taxes on non-Indians. They also argued that the Indian Mineral Leasing Act [5] (IMLA) required BIA approval for taxes. [2]

Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice Burger delivered the unanimous opinion of the court. Burger noted that the IRA only required BIA approval of tribal constitutions and bylaws, not the power to tax. He noted that it would not affect the Navajo tribe in any case, since the tribe declined to accept the provisions of the IRA. [6] Burger also took note that the tribal authority to tax had been recognized long before the IRA was enacted. The IMLA also did not require approval for taxes, merely requiring that the Secretary issue regulations on oil and gas leases, which he has done. The regulations do not require his approval for taxes by tribes. [2]

Burger noted that the policy of the federal government was to promote tribal self-government, and the power to tax is an inherent power of government. When a tribe executes a mineral rights lease it is acting in a commercial matter, and that does not prevent the tribe from exercising tribal sovereignty in enacting a tax. Since there is not a federal law prohibiting such a tax, the tribe is within its rights to enact one. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit was affirmed. [2]

Subsequent developments

Kerr-McGee is one of a series of cases where the Supreme Court has ruled, based on tribal sovereignty, that tribes have the right to tax non-Indians. [7] [8] These cases led to tribes renegotiating inequitable mineral leases, forming their own natural resources regulatory agencies, and tribal development companies. [1] [8] [9] In the case of the Navajo tribe, which had a long history of uranium mining and radioactive contamination of both tribal members and its water sources by mining firms (including Kerr-McGee), it supported the outright ban on uranium mining. [10] It has been used to support the right of tribes to control their natural resources, including exercising civil jurisdiction over non-Indians. [11] In recognition of the importance of the decision to the tribe, the tribal council declared that the date of the decision was a tribal holiday, known as "Navajo National Sovereignty Day." [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian Reorganization Act</span> United States Law

The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of June 18, 1934, or the Wheeler–Howard Act, was U.S. federal legislation that dealt with the status of American Indians in the United States. It was the centerpiece of what has been often called the "Indian New Deal". The major goal was to reverse the traditional goal of cultural assimilation of Native Americans into American society and to strengthen, encourage and perpetuate the tribes and their historic Native American cultures in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Native American gaming</span> 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Navajo Nation</span> Native American territory in the Southwestern United States

The Navajo Nation, also known as Navajoland, is a Native American reservation of Navajos in the United States. It occupies portions of northeastern Arizona, northwestern New Mexico, and southeastern Utah; at roughly 17,544,500 acres, the Navajo Nation is the largest land area held by a Native American tribe in the U.S., exceeding ten U.S. states. In 2010, the reservation was home to 173,667 out of 332,129 Navajo tribal members; the remaining 158,462 tribal members lived outside the reservation, in urban areas, border towns, and elsewhere in the U.S.. The seat of government is located in Window Rock, Arizona.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kerr-McGee</span> American energy company

The Kerr-McGee Corporation, founded in 1929, was an American energy company involved in oil exploration, production of crude oil, natural gas, perchlorate and uranium mining and milling in various countries. On June 23, 2006, Anadarko Petroleum acquired Kerr-McGee in an all-cash transaction totaling $16.5 billion plus $2.6 billion in debt and all operations moved from their base in Oklahoma, United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tribal sovereignty in the United States</span> 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian reservation</span> Land managed by Native American nations under the US Bureau of Indian Affairs

An Indian reservation is an area of land held and governed by a U.S. federal government-recognized Native American tribal nation, whose government is semi-sovereign, subject to regulations passed by the United States Congress and administered by the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, and not to the U.S. state government in which it is located. Some of the country's 574 federally recognized tribes govern more than one of the 326 Indian reservations in the United States, while some share reservations, and others have no reservation at all. Historical piecemeal land allocations under the Dawes Act facilitated sales to non–Native Americans, resulting in some reservations becoming severely fragmented, with pieces of tribal and privately held land being treated as separate enclaves. This jumble of private and public real estate creates significant administrative, political, and legal difficulties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian Gaming Regulatory Act</span> US federal law

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ramah Navajo Indian Reservation</span>

The Ramah Navajo Indian Reservation is a non-contiguous section of the Navajo Nation lying in parts of west-central Cibola and southern McKinley counties in New Mexico, United States, just east and southeast of the Zuni Indian Reservation. It has a land area of 230.675 sq mi (597.445 km²), over 95 percent of which is designated as off-reservation trust land. According to the 2000 census, the resident population is 2,167 persons. The Ramah Reservation's land area is less than one percent of the Navajo Nation's total area.

Native American self-determination refers to the social movements, legislation and beliefs by which the Native American tribes in the United States exercise self-governance and decision making on issues that affect their own people.

United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287 (2009) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Navajo Nation initiated proceedings in the Court of Federal Claims alleging that when they sought the assistance of the United States Secretary of the Interior to renegotiate their original leasing agreement with the Peabody Coal Company in 1984, a procedural process defined by the 1964 Indian Mineral Leasing Act (IMLA) of 1938, the United States Secretary of the Interior had been improperly influenced by the coal company, and as a result, had breached his fiduciary duty to the Nation when he approved the 1987 lease amendments.

Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978), was a landmark case in the area of federal Indian law involving issues of great importance to the meaning of tribal sovereignty in the contemporary United States. The Supreme Court sustained a law passed by the governing body of the Santa Clara Pueblo that explicitly discriminated on the basis of sex. In so doing, the Court advanced a theory of tribal sovereignty that weighed the interests of tribes sufficient to justify a law that, had it been passed by a state legislature or Congress, would have almost certainly been struck down as a violation of equal protection.

City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 544 U.S. 197 (2005), was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court held that repurchase of traditional tribal lands 200 years later did not restore tribal sovereignty to that land. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion.

United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465 (2003), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5–4 decision that when the federal government used land or property held in trust for an Indian tribe, it had the duty to maintain that land or property and was liable for any damages for a breach of that duty. In the 1870s, the White Mountain Apache Tribe was placed on a reservation in Arizona. The case involved Fort Apache, a collection of buildings on the reservation which were transferred to the tribe by the United States Congress in 1960.

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.

White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States holding that Arizona's taxes that were assessed against a non-Indian contractor that was working exclusively for an Indian tribe on that tribe's reservation were preempted by federal law.

Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556 (1883), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that followed the death of one member of a Native American tribe at the hands of another on reservation land. Crow Dog was a member of the Brulé band of the Lakota Sioux. On August 5, 1881 he shot and killed Spotted Tail, a Lakota chief; there are different accounts of the background to the killing. The tribal council dealt with the incident according to Sioux tradition, and Crow Dog paid restitution to the dead man's family. However, the U.S. authorities then prosecuted Crow Dog for murder in a federal court. He was found guilty and sentenced to hang.

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.

Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 567 U.S. 182 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the United States government, when it enters into a contract with a Native American Indian tribe for services, must pay contracts in full, even if Congress has not appropriated enough money to pay all tribal contractors. The case was litigated over a period of 22 years, beginning in 1990, until it was decided in 2012.

Atkinson Trading Co. v. Shirley, 532 U.S. 645 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the Navajo Nation's imposition of a hotel occupancy tax upon nonmembers on non-Indian fee land within its reservation is invalid.

References

  1. 1 2 Wilkinson, Charles F. (1996), Home Dance, the Hopi, and Black Mesa Coal: Conquest and Endurance in the American Southwest Archived 2013-11-10 at the Wayback Machine , 1996 BYU L. R. 449, Brigham Young Univ.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Kerr-McGee v. Navajo Tribe, 471 U.S. 195 (1985).
  3. 1 2 Kerr-McGee v. Navajo Tribe, 731F.2d597 (9th Cir.1984).
  4. Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 48  Stat.   984, 25 U.S.C.   § 461.
  5. Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938, 52  Stat.   347, 25 U.S.C.   § 396a.
  6. Resnik, Judith (1989), Dependent Sovereigns: Indian Tribes, States, and the Federal Courts , 56 U. Chi. L. R. 671, Univ. of Chicago.
  7. Allen, Mark (1989), Native American Control of Tribal Natural Resource Development in the Context of the Federal Trust and Tribal Self-Determination , 16 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 857, Boston College.
  8. 1 2 3 Krakoff, Sarah (2004), A Narrative of Sovereignty: Illuminating the Paradox of the Domestic Dependent Nation , 83 Ore. L. R. 1109, Univ. of Oregon.
  9. Stout, Jacob (2011), Tribal Self-Determination in Natural Resources: Management, Control, and Trust Responsibilities or the Lack Thereof in Navajo Nation v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1547 (2009) , 89 Neb. L. R. 538, Univ. of Nebraska.
  10. Newton, Nell Jessup (1992), Indian Claims in the Courts of the Conqueror Archived 2014-08-13 at the Wayback Machine , 41 Am. Univ. L. R. 753, American Univ.
  11. Krakoff, Sarah (2001), Undoing Indian Law One Case at a Time: Judicial Minimalism and Tribal Sovereignty Archived 2012-09-07 at the Wayback Machine , 50 Am. Univ. L. R. 1177, American Univ.