Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Sac & Fox Nation

Last updated

Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Sac & Fox Nation
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 23, 1993
Decided May 18, 1993
Full case nameOklahoma Tax Commission v. Sac & Fox Nation
Citations508 U.S. 114 ( more )
113 S. Ct. 1985; 124 L. Ed. 2d 30; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 3135
Case history
Prior967 F.2d 1425 (10th Cir. 1992)
Holding
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.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
Byron White  · Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Case opinion
MajorityO'Connor, joined by unanimous

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. [1]

Contents

The Sac and Fox Nation is an Indian (Native American) tribe that governs itself under the Indian Self-Determination Act and imposes taxes based on that authority. The State of Oklahoma sought to impose income and motor vehicle taxes on tribal members. The tribe brought suit to prevent the state from imposing those taxes.

Both the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court held that Oklahoma, without a clear authorization from Congress, was prohibited from imposing taxes on tribal members in Indian country. This case, together with several other cases, are known as the "Oklahoma tax cases" in Native American case law.

Background

History

Seal of Sac & Fox Nation Sac&fox patch.jpg
Seal of Sac & Fox Nation

The Sac and Fox Nation is an Indian tribe originally from the Great Lakes area. Following a series of treaties with the United States, in 1867 [2] [3] they moved to the Sac and Fox reservation of 480,000 acres (190,000 ha) in Indian Territory (in what is now Pottawatomie County in the State of Oklahoma). In 1887, Congress passed the Dawes Act which broke up the reservation and allotted land to the tribal members. [4] [5] In implementing this law, the United States entered into another treaty with the tribe in 1891, [6] [7] in which the tribe retained 800 acres (320 ha) as a tribal headquarters and tribal members were allotted 160 acres (65 ha) of land from the former reservation. [1]

The Sac and Fox Nation governs itself under the authority of the Indian Self-Determination Act [8] and has its own tax commission. The tribe imposes a tax on earnings of any person working within tribal jurisdiction, regardless of whether that person is a tribal member. The tribe also provides for a motor vehicle tax and registration of any vehicle that are owned by a tribal member and garaged within tribal jurisdiction. The State of Oklahoma, through the Oklahoma Tax Commission, also administers income [9] and motor vehicle taxes. [10] The state considers that all income earned in the state is taxable, including on tribal land, and issues tax assessments against those who are delinquent. Oklahoma contends that anyone within the state had to register their vehicles with the state, while the Sac and Fox Nation required tribal members residing in tribal jurisdiction to register the vehicle with the tribe. The state viewed those members to be delinquent in their vehicle taxes, but made no effort to collect until the vehicle was sold to a new owner. At that time, Oklahoma would require that the delinquent taxes and penalties be paid in order to register the vehicle. [1] [11] [12]

Lower courts

Seal of Oklahoma Seal of Oklahoma.svg
Seal of Oklahoma

The Sac and Fox Nation then filed a lawsuit against the Oklahoma Tax Commission in U.S. District Court seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting the state from taxing income earned within tribal jurisdiction or of those who reside within the tribe's jurisdiction, and from vehicle taxes on vehicles that were lawfully registered with the tribe. Both the Sac and Fox Nation and Oklahoma made motions for summary judgment and the district court, without determining reservation boundaries, held that while the state could collect income tax on non-tribal members, they could not collect income taxes from tribal members employed by the tribe on trust land. The district court also held that the state could not collect vehicle taxes for periods that the vehicle was properly registered with the tribe. Both sides appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. [1] [11]

The Tenth Circuit Court affirmed the decision of the district court. First the court noted that the reservation boundaries were not relevant to the case, the issue instead being tribal immunity from state jurisdiction. The court noted the prior Supreme Court decision in Okla. Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band, Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla. [13] and stated that "It appears as though the State of Oklahoma persists in fighting a battle it has already lost." [11] Since Oklahoma could provide no Congressional authority for collecting taxes from Sac and Fox tribal members it was clear that the state had exceeded its authority. [14] On the income tax for non-tribal employees, the Sac and Fox Nation asserted that the Commerce Clause and treaty language granted it exclusive taxing authority on tribal land. The appellate court was not persuaded and ruled that the state could impose an income tax on non-tribal members. [11] [15]

On the issue of tribal motor vehicle taxes and registration, the Tenth Circuit Court did not make a distinction between tribal and non-tribal members. The court held that the tribe could require the registration of vehicles on tribal land, regardless of whether the owner was a tribal member or not. The court noted that both Moe v. Salish and Kootenai Tribes [16] and Washington v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation [17] prohibit such state taxation on tribal members. The state could enforce its vehicle tax on non-tribal members. [1] [11]

Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court, which, after noting a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision in the same area, granted certiorari and agreed to hear the case. [1]

Opinion of the court

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, author of the unanimous opinion Sandra Day O'Connor.jpg
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, author of the unanimous opinion

Arguments

David Allen Miley argued the case for Oklahoma. Edwin Kneedler argued the case for the United States as amicus curiae on behalf of the tribe, with Solicitor General Ken Starr. G. William Rice argued the case for the Sac and Fox Nation. Amicus curiae briefs in support of Oklahoma were filed by Arizona, Minnesota, North Dakota and Wisconsin. Briefs in support of the tribe were filed by Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, [18] Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and Navajo Nation. [1]

The state argued that the case law cited by the Tenth Circuit only dealt with established Indian reservations and that the appellate court erred since the Sac and Fox reservation had been disestablished in the 1890s. The Tax Commission's position was that there were no more reservations in Oklahoma. [19] Oklahoma stated that without determining reservation boundaries, if any, the lower court would be unable to properly apply tribal immunity. The state also argued that the vehicle tax and registration fees were more akin to a sales tax and a use fee than an excise tax. [1]

Opinion

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor delivered the opinion of a unanimous court. O'Connor stated that Oklahoma's argument that a tribal member must live on a reservation to be exempt from state taxes was incorrect. All that is required is that the member live in "Indian country", [20] [21] which Congress has defined to "include formal and informal reservations, dependent Indian communities, and Indian allotments, whether restricted or held in trust by the United States." [1] O'Connor noted that the Tenth Circuit should have determined the residence of the tribal members as inside or outside of Indian country, not if they were within the reservation. [22] [23] She noted that in Potawatomi case, Oklahoma made exactly the same argument which was also rejected by the court. [1]

O'Connor also rejected the state's argument that the motor vehicle tax was not an excise tax and that the registration fee was a use fee. She stated that the tax strongly resembled the taxes prohibited by Colville and Moe, and noted that if the registration fee was a use fee, then non-residents of Oklahoma would not be exempt. The court upheld the decision of the Tenth Circuit Court. [1] [24] [25] [26]

Subsequent developments

This case, together with two other involving the Oklahoma Tax Commission have defined tribal sovereignty in a clearer manner. [22] [27] [28] The case has been cited in numerous lower court opinions, as well as the Supreme Courts own opinions, as limiting the ability of state governments to act in Indian country. [27] [28] Sac and Fox, together with Potawatomi and Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Chickasaw Nation , [29] have become known as the "Oklahoma tax cases". [30] The decision is also unique in that it uses a federal criminal jurisdiction statute as the basis for civil jurisdiction. [31]

Related Research Articles

<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">Sac and Fox Nation</span> Sauk tribe based in Oklahoma

The Sac and Fox Nation is the largest of three federally recognized tribes of Sauk and Meskwaki (Fox) Indian peoples. Originally from the Lake Huron and Lake Michigan area, they were forcibly relocated to Oklahoma in the 1870s and are predominantly Sauk. The Sac and Fox Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area (OTSA) is the land base in Oklahoma governed by the tribe.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska</span> One of two federally recognized tribes of Iowa people

The Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska is one of two federally recognized tribes of Iowa people. The other is the Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vehicle registration plates of Native American tribes in the United States</span> Native American tribe vehicle license plates

Several Native American tribes within the United States register motor vehicles and issue license plates to those vehicles.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Meskwaki Settlement, Iowa</span> Meskwakiinaki, a Native American settlement in Iowa

Meskwakiinaki, also called the Meskwaki Settlement, is an unincorporated community in Tama County, Iowa, United States, west of Tama. It encompasses the lands of the Meskwaki Nation, one of three Sac and Fox tribes in the United States. The others are located in Oklahoma and Kansas. The settlement is located in the historic territory of the Meskwaki (Fox), an Algonquian people. Meskwaki people established the settlement in 1857 by privately repurchasing a small part of the land they had lost in the Sac and Fox treaty of 1842.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sovereign immunity in the United States</span> Legal protection of federal, state and tribal governments

In United States law, the federal government as well as state and tribal governments generally enjoy sovereign immunity, also known as governmental immunity, from lawsuits. Local governments in most jurisdictions enjoy immunity from some forms of suit, particularly in tort. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides foreign governments, including state-owned companies, with a related form of immunity—state immunity—that shields them from lawsuits except in relation to certain actions relating to commercial activity in the United States. The principle of sovereign immunity in US law was inherited from the English common law legal maxim rex non potest peccare, meaning "the king can do no wrong." In some situations, sovereign immunity may be waived by law.

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.

Okla. Tax Commission v. Citizen Band, Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505 (1991), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the tribe was not subject to state sales taxes on sales made to tribal members, but that they were liable for taxes on sales to non-tribal members.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska</span> Sauk and Meskwaki tribe based in Kansas

The Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska is one of three federally recognized Native American tribes of Sac and Meskwaki (Fox) peoples. Their name for themselves is Nemahahaki and they are an Algonquian people and Eastern Woodland culture.

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

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area</span> Statistical entity

Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area is a statistical entity identified and delineated by federally recognized American Indian tribes in Oklahoma as part of the U.S. Census Bureau's 2010 Census and ongoing American Community Survey. Many of these areas are also designated Tribal Jurisdictional Areas, areas within which tribes will provide government services and assert other forms of government authority. They differ from standard reservations, such as the Osage Nation of Oklahoma, in that allotment was broken up and as a consequence their residents are a mix of native and non-native people, with only tribal members subject to the tribal government. At least five of these areas, those of the so-called five civilized tribes of Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek and Seminole, which cover 43% of the area of the state, are recognized as reservations by federal treaty, and thus not subject to state law or jurisdiction for tribal members.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cherokee Commission</span> Three-person bi-partisan body created by President Benjamin Harrison

The Cherokee Commission, was a three-person bi-partisan body created by President Benjamin Harrison to operate under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, as empowered by Section 14 of the Indian Appropriations Act of March 2, 1889. Section 15 of the same Act empowered the President to open land for settlement. The Commission's purpose was to legally acquire land occupied by the Cherokee Nation and other tribes in the Oklahoma Territory for non-indigenous homestead acreage.

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.

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.

United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634 (1978), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that lands designated as a reservation in Mississippi are "Indian country" as defined by statute, although the reservation was established nearly a century after Indian removal and related treaties. The court ruled that, under the Major Crimes Act, the State has no jurisdiction to try a Native American for crimes covered by that act that occurred on reservation land.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Former Indian reservations in Oklahoma</span>

Both the Oklahoma and Indian Territories contained suzerain Indian nations that had legally established boundaries. The US federal government allotted collective tribal landholdings through the allotment process before the establishment of Oklahoma as a state in 1907. Tribal jurisdictional areas replaced the tribal governments, with the exception of the Osage Nation. As confirmed by the Osage Nation Reaffirmation Act of 2004, the Osage Nation retains mineral rights to their reservation, the so-called "Underground Reservation".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas</span> Federally recognized tribe of Kickapoo people

The Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas is one of three Federally recognized tribes of Kickapoo people. The other Kickapoo tribes in the United States are the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas and the Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma. The Tribu Kikapú are a distinct subgroup of the Oklahoma Kickapoo and reside on a hacienda near Múzquiz Coahuila, Mexico; they also have a small band located in the Mexican states of Sonora and Durango.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Minnie Evans (Potawatomi leader)</span> American politician

Minnie Evans was a tribal chair of the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation who successfully defeated termination of her tribe and filed for reparations with the Indian Claims Commission during the Indian termination policy period from the 1940s to the 1960s.

Sharp v. Murphy, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a Supreme Court of the United States case of whether Congress disestablished the Muscogee (Creek) Nation reservation. After holding the case from the 2018 term, the case was decided on July 9, 2020, in a per curiam decision following McGirt v. Oklahoma that, for the purposes of the Major Crimes Act, the reservations were never disestablished and remain Native American country.

McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that the domain reserved for the Muscogee Nation by Congress in the 19th century has never been disestablished and constitutes Indian country for the purposes of the Major Crimes Act, meaning that the State of Oklahoma has no right to prosecute American Indians for crimes allegedly committed therein. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals applied the McGirt rationale to rule nine other Indigenous nations had not been disestablished. As a result, almost the entirety of the eastern half of what is now the State of Oklahoma remains Indian country, meaning that criminal prosecutions of Native Americans for offenses therein falls outside the jurisdiction of Oklahoma’s court system. In these cases, jurisdiction properly vests within the Indigenous judicial systems and the federal district courts under the Major Crimes Act.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Okla. Tax Comm'n v. Sac & Fox Nation, 508 U.S. 114 (1993).
  2. ↑ Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes, 1867, 15  Stat.   495.
  3. ↑ 2 Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties Archived November 26, 2011, at the Wayback Machine 951-956 (Charles J. Kappler, ed. 1904)
  4. ↑ General Allotment Act of 1887, 24  Stat.   388.
  5. ↑ 1 Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties Archived 2011-05-25 at the Wayback Machine 33-36 (Charles J. Kappler, ed. 1904)
  6. ↑ Treaty with the Sac and Fox Nation of Indians, 1890, 26  Stat.   749.
  7. ↑ 1 Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties Archived November 3, 2012, at the Wayback Machine 389–393 (Charles J. Kappler, ed. 1904)
  8. ↑ Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, 25 U.S.C.   § 450f.
  9. ↑ Okla. Stat., Tit. 68, § 2351 et seq.
  10. ↑ Okla. Stat., Tit. 68, § 2101 et seq.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 Sac and Fox Nation v. Okla. Tax Comm'n, 967 F.2d 1425 (10th Cir. 1992).
  12. ↑ Alex Tallchief Skibine, Teaching Indian Law in an Anti-Tribal Era Archived 2012-09-07 at the Wayback Machine , 82 N.D. L. Rev. 777 (2006).
  13. ↑ Okla. Tax Comm'n v. Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505 (1991).
  14. ↑ Bradford D. Cooley, The Navajo Uranium Ban: Tribal Sovereignty v. National Energy Demands Archived 2015-10-19 at the Wayback Machine , 26 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 393 (2006).
  15. ↑ Okla. Tax Comm'n v. Chickasaw Nation, 515 U.S. 450 (1995).
  16. ↑ Moe v. Salish and Kootenai Tribes, 425 U.S. 463 (1976).
  17. ↑ Washington v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U.S. 134 (1980).
  18. ↑ R. David Edmunds, The New Warriors: Native American Leaders Since 1900 307-308 (2004).
  19. ↑ W. Dale Mason, Indian Gaming: Tribal Sovereignty and American Politics 200-202 (2000).
  20. ↑ 18 U.S.C.   § 1151.
  21. ↑ Angelique A. EagleWoman, Re-establishing the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate's Reservation Boundaries: Building a Legal Rationale from Current International Law Archived March 4, 2016, at the Wayback Machine , 29 Am. Indian. L. Rev. 239 (2005).
  22. 1 2 Skibine, supra, at 783 n.50.
  23. ↑ Joseph D. Matal, A Revisionist History of Indian Country , 14 Alaska L. Rev. 283 (1997).
  24. ↑ Skibine, supra, at 782.
  25. ↑ Joseph Francis Zimmerman, Interstate Relations: The Neglected Dimension of Federalism 11 (1996).
  26. ↑ Edmunds, supra, at 307-308.
  27. 1 2 Matal, supra, at 327, 333.
  28. 1 2 Zimmerman, supra, at 11.
  29. ↑ Chickasaw Nation, supra, at 450.
  30. ↑ Cooley, supra, at 414.
  31. ↑ Marc Slonim, Indian Country, Indian Reservations, and the Importance of History in Indian Law , 45 Gonz. L. Rev. 517, (2010).

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.