Washington State Dept. of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc.

Last updated
Washington v. Cougar Den
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued October 30, 2018
Decided March 19, 2019
Full case nameWashington State Dept. of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc.
Docket no. 16-1498
Citations586 U.S. ___ ( more )
139 S. Ct. 1000; 203 L. Ed. 2d 301
Case history
PriorCougar Den, Inc. v. Dep't of Licensing, 392 P.3d 1014 (2017); cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 2671 (2018).
Holding
The Yakama Nation Treaty of 1855 preempts the state law which the State purported to be able to tax fuel purchased by a tribal corporation for sale to tribal members.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
PluralityBreyer, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan
ConcurrenceGorsuch (in judgment), joined by Ginsburg
DissentRoberts, joined by Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh
DissentKavanaugh, joined by Thomas
Laws applied
Yakama Nation Treaty of 1855; Wash. Rev. Code §§82.36.010(4), (12), (16)

Washington State Dep't of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc., 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Yakama Nation Treaty of 1855 preempts the state law which the State purported to be able to tax fuel purchased by a tribal corporation for sale to tribal members. This was a 5-4 plurality decision, with Justice Breyer's opinion being joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Ginsburg, penned a concurring opinion. There were dissenting opinions by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh.

Contents

Background

Facts of the case

The Yakama Nation is an American Indian tribe in Washington, located on the Yakama Indian Reservation, on the east side of the Cascade Mountains. In 1855, the tribe signed the Yakama Nation Treaty of 1855, ceding approximately 10,000,000 acres to the United States, but reserving important rights for the tribe and its members. In the treaty, the tribe reserved “the right, in common with citizens of the United States, to travel upon all public highways.” [1]

Cougar Den, Inc., was a corporation owned by the Yakama Nation, and which imported gasoline onto the reservation for sale to tribal members. The laws of the State of Washington imposed a tax on fuel imported into the state by truck, [2] which the tribe refused to pay. Washington, in 2013, assessed taxes and penalties of $3.6 million dollars against the tribe. [3] Cougar Den appealed the assessment.

Procedural history

The matter was first heard by an administrative law judge, who ruled in favor of the tribe, and that the tax was preempted by the treaty. [4] The State asked for review, and the Director of the State Department of Licensing reversed, holding that the tribe owed the Department the assessment. [5] Cougar Den then petitioned in the Yakima County Superior Court, which was sitting in an appellate capacity. The Superior Court reversed the Director's decision, holding that the tax was preempted by treaty. [6] The Department appealed and the Washington Supreme Court granted direct review. In a 7-2 decision, the Washington Supreme Court affirmed the lower decision, holding that the treaty preempted the state tax. [7] The Department then petitioned the United States Supreme Court, and the Court granted certiorari . [8]

Supreme Court

Arguments

State Solicitor General Noah Purcell argued the case for the State of Washington. Purcell argued that the taxes merely reached possession of the fuel, not the right to travel. [9] Assistant U.S. Solicitor General Anne O’Connell argued for the United States, supporting the State of Washington. She took the same position as Purcell, that the treaty only guaranteed the tribe the right to use the roads. [10] Adam Unikowsky argued the case for the Yakama Nation. Unikowsky argued that the treaty allowed the tribe the right to take its goods to and from the marketplace. He stated that this was a tax on travel with goods, not the possession of the goods. [11]

Opinion of the Court

Justice Stephen Breyer, author of the opinion Stephen Breyer, SCOTUS photo portrait.jpg
Justice Stephen Breyer, author of the opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Justice Breyer noted that the Washington tax was not a tax on possession or the importation of fuel, only on the ground transportation of fuel. [12] Therefore, the "State must prove that Cougar Den traveled by highway in order to apply its tax." [13] He observed that Washington had amended its fuel taxation scheme, after a U.S. District Court had barred the State from taxing fuel on the tribal reservation. [14] In addition, Breyer noted that the tribe, at the time they agreed to the treaty, would have understood that they had the "right to travel on the public highways included the right to travel with goods for purposes of trade." [15] Since the tax placed a burden on the right of the tribe to travel on the highway with goods, the state law was preempted by the treaty, and the lower decision was affirmed. [16]

Concurring opinion

Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, issued a concurring opinion. [17] [18] In his view, the Court was "charged with adopting the interpretation most consistent with the treaty’s original meaning." [19] Justice Gorsuch noted that the treaty was written in English, then translated into Chinook (a pidgin language, not the native tongue of the tribe), and the interpretation must be based on how the Yakama Nation understood it at the time of the treaty signing. [20] He felt that the tribe believed that the treaty provided them “with the right to travel on all public highways without being subject to any licensing and permitting fees related to the exercise of that right while engaged in the transportation of tribal goods.” [21] Justice Gorsuch concluded his opinion with:

"Really, this case just tells an old and familiar story. The State of Washington includes millions of acres that the Yakamas ceded to the United States under significant pressure. In return, the government supplied a handful of modest promises. The State is now dissatisfied with the consequences of one of those promises. It is a new day, and now it wants more. But today and to its credit, the Court holds the parties to the terms of their deal. It is the least we can do." [22]

Dissenting opinions

Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. Roberts believed that the State's tax was a tax on the possession of the fuel, not on its transportation. [23] In his opinion, the tax would be preempted only if it acted as a toll or a blockade. [24]

Further to Roberts' dissent, Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Thomas, issued a separate dissent. Justice Kavanaugh stated that the treaty merely allowed tribal members to travel on public highways on the same basis as non-Indian citizens. [25]

See also

Related Research Articles

Yakama Indian Reservation

The Yakama Indian Reservation is a Native American reservation in Washington state of the federally recognized tribe known as the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation. The tribe is made up of Klikitat, Palus, Wallawalla, Wanapam, Wenatchi, Wishram, and Yakama peoples.

<i>United States v. Washington</i> 1974 court case

United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312, aff'd, 520 F.2d 676, commonly known as the Boldt Decision, was a 1974 case heard in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. It reaffirmed the reserved right of American Indian tribes in the State of Washington to act alongside the state as co-managers of salmon and other fish, and to continue harvesting them in accordance with the various treaties that the United States had signed with the tribes. The tribes of Washington had ceded their land to the United States but had reserved the right to fish as they had always done, including fishing at their traditional locations that were off the designated reservations.

Neil Gorsuch United States Supreme Court justice

Neil McGill Gorsuch is an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President Donald Trump on January 31, 2017 and has served since April 10, 2017.

United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371 (1905), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that held that the Treaty with the Yakima of 1855, negotiated and signed at the Walla Walla Council of 1855, as well as treaties similar to it, protected the Indians' rights to fishing, hunting and other privileges.

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court found that the Alien Tort Claims Act presumptively does not apply extraterritorially.

Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether there is a constitutional right to live in the United States with one's spouse and whether procedural due process requires consular officials to give notice of reasons for denying a visa application. In Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion, the controlling opinion in this case, he wrote that notice requirements “[do] not apply when, as in this case, a visa application is denied due to terrorism or national security concerns.” Because the consular officials satisfied notice requirements, there was no need for the Court to address the constitutional question about the right to live with one's spouse.

Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when municipalities may impose content-based restrictions on signage. The case also clarified the level of constitutional scrutiny that should be applied to content-based restrictions on speech. In 2005, Gilbert, Arizona adopted a municipal sign ordinance that regulated the manner in which signs could be displayed in public areas. The ordinance imposed stricter limitations on signs advertising religious services than signs that displayed "political" or "ideological" messages. When the town's Sign Code compliance manager cited a local church for violating the ordinance, the church filed a lawsuit in which they argued the town's sign regulations violated its First Amendment right to the freedom of speech.

Ocasio v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified whether the Hobbs Act's definition of conspiracy to commit extortion only includes attempts to acquire property from someone who is not a member of the conspiracy. The case arose when Samuel Ocasio, a former Baltimore, Maryland police officer, was indicted for participating in a kickback scheme with an automobile repair shop where officers would refer drivers of damaged vehicles to the shop in exchange for cash payments. Ocasio argued that he should not be found guilty of conspiring to commit extortion because the only property that was exchanged in the scheme was transferred from one member of the conspiracy to another, and an individual cannot be found guilty of conspiring to extort a co-conspirator.

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a Missouri program that denied a grant to a religious school for playground resurfacing, while providing grants to similarly situated non-religious groups, violated the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

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.

June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a Louisiana state law placing hospital-admission requirements on abortion clinics doctors was unconstitutional. The law mirrored a Texas state law that the Court found unconstitutional in 2016 in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (WWH).

American Legion v. American Humanist Association, No. 17-1717, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the separation of church and state related to maintaining the Peace Cross, a World War I memorial shaped after a Latin cross, on government-owned land, though initially built in 1925 with private funds on private lands. The case was a consolidation of two petitions to the court, that of The American Legion who built the cross, and of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission who own the land and maintain the memorial. Both petitions challenged the Fourth Circuit's ruling that, regardless of the secular purpose the cross was built for in honoring the deceased soldiers, the cross emboldened a religious symbol and had ordered it altered or razed. The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit's ruling in a 7–2 decision, determining that since the Cross had stood for decades without controversy, it did not violate the Establishment Clause and could remain standing.

Herrera v. Wyoming, No. 17-532, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Wyoming's statehood did not void the Crow Tribe's right to hunt on "unoccupied lands of the United States" under an 1868 treaty, and that the Bighorn National Forest did not automatically become "occupied" when the forest was created.

Garza v. Idaho, 586 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 738 (2019), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the presumption of prejudice for Sixth Amendment purposes applies whether a defendant has waived the right to appeal.

Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term. In a split opinion, the Court held that the state of Virginia's ban on uranium mining did not conflict with the Atomic Energy Act.

2019 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down ten per curiam opinions during its 2019 term, which began October 7, 2019 and concluded October 4, 2020.

McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which ruled that, as pertaining to the Major Crimes Act, much of the eastern portion of the state of Oklahoma remains as Native American lands of the prior Indian reservations of the Five Civilized Tribes, never disestablished by Congress as part of the Oklahoma Enabling Act of 1906. McGirt was related to Sharp v. Murphy, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), heard in the 2018–19 term on the same question but which was believed to be deadlocked due to Justice Neil Gorsuch's recusal; Gorsuch recused because he had prior judicial oversight of the case. Sharp was decided per curiam alongside McGirt.

Agency for Int'l Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), also known as Alliance for Open Society II, was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that compelled speech required as a condition for funding on foreign non-governmental affiliates of U.S. non-government organizations does not violate First Amendment rights.

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a state-based scholarship program that provides public funds to allow students to attend private schools cannot discriminate against religious schools under the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution.

2020 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States Wikipedia list article

The Supreme Court of the United States has handed down ten per curiam opinions during its 2020 term, which began October 5, 2020 and will conclude October 3, 2021.

References

  1. ↑ Yakama Nation Treaty of 1855, June 9, 1855, ratified Mar. 8, 1859, 12 Stat. 951.
  2. ↑ Wash. Rev. Code § 82.36.020.
  3. ↑ Washington State Dep't of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc., No. 16-1498, 586 U.S. ___, slip op. at 3 (2019) (hereinafter cited as Cougar Den); Cougar Den v. State Dep't of Licensing, 392 P.3d 1014, 1015 (Wash., 2017) (hereinafter cited as State Dep't).
  4. ↑ Cougar Den, slip op. at 3; State Dep't, 392 P.3d at 1015; Kate Prengaman, Gas tax fuels debate between Yakama Nation, state , Yakama Herald, May 22, 2015, (last visited Mar 24, 2019).
  5. ↑ Cougar Den, slip op. at 3; State Dep't, 392 P.3d at 1015.
  6. ↑ Cougar Den, slip op. at 3; State Dep't, 392 P.3d at 1015; Kate Prengaman, Judge's ruling expected to favor treaty rights in gas tax case , Yakama Herald, July 22, 2015, (last visited Mar 24, 2019).
  7. ↑ Cougar Den, slip op. at 4; State Dep't, 392 P.3d at 1020.
  8. ↑ Cougar Den, slip op. at 4.
  9. ↑ Bethany Berger, Argument analysis: Justices conflicted in clash between fuel tax and Yakama Treaty SCOTUSblog (2018), (last visited Mar 21, 2019) (hereinafter cited as Berger, Argument analysis).
  10. ↑ Berger, Argument analysis.
  11. ↑ Berger, Argument analysis.
  12. ↑ Cougar Den, slip op. at 6.
  13. ↑ Cougar Den, slip op. at 7 (emphasis in original).
  14. ↑ Cougar Den, slip op. at 9-10.
  15. ↑ Cougar Den, slip op. at 14.
  16. ↑ Cougar Den, slip op. at 18.
  17. ↑ Deshais, Nicholas (March 21, 2019). "Neil Gorsuch joins liberals giving Yakama Nation a Supreme Court victory over state of Washington". The Spokesman-Review. Archived from the original on October 1, 2019. Retrieved July 11, 2020.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
  18. ↑ Totenberg, Nina (March 20, 2019). "Conservative Justice Gorsuch Joins Supreme Court Liberals In Deciding Yakama Nation Treaty Case". National Public Radio . Northwest Public Broadcasting. Archived from the original on July 11, 2020. Retrieved July 11, 2020.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
  19. ↑ Cougar Den, slip op. at 1 (J. Gorsuch, concurring).
  20. ↑ Cougar Den, slip op. at 2 (J. Gorsuch, concurring).
  21. ↑ Cougar Den, slip op. at 3 (J. Gorsuch, concurring).
  22. ↑ Cougar Den, slip op. at 11 (J. Gorsuch, concurring).
  23. ↑ Cougar Den, slip op. at 2 (CJ Roberts, dissenting).
  24. ↑ Cougar Den, slip op. at 2 (CJ Roberts, dissenting).
  25. ↑ Cougar Den, slip op. at 1 (J Kavanaugh, dissenting).
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.