Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation

Last updated

Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 2, 1978
Decided January 16, 1979
Full case nameWashington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation
Citations439 U.S. 463 ( more )
99 S. Ct. 740; 58 L. Ed. 2d 740; 1979 U.S. LEXIS 55
Case history
Prior552 F.2d 1332
Subsequent608 F.2d 750
Holding
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.
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 opinions
MajorityStewart, joined by Burger, White, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens
DissentMarshall, joined by Brennan
Laws applied
Pub. L.   83–280

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. [1]

Contents

Background

Yakama Indian Reservation map Yakima Indian Reservation map.png
Yakama Indian Reservation map

The Yakama Nation is an Indian tribe with its reservation in southern Washington. [fn 1] The tribe comprises 14 distinct Indian tribes that the U.S. banded together in the 1850s for the purpose of treaty making. The current treaty was ratified by the Senate in 1859, under this treaty the tribe reserved to itself 1,387,505 acres (561,503 ha; 2,167.977 sq mi) for its reservation, as well as the right to exercise certain reserved rights on ceded lands and usual and accustomed locations. The reservation has tribal land and land held in fee. The fee land is owned by both tribal members and non-Indians, and tribal members are outnumbered greatly by non-Indians. [1]

Public Law 280 [2] transferred law enforcement authority from the federal government to state law enforcement in six states, [fn 2] and other states were allowed to assume criminal jurisdiction if the affected Indian (Native American) tribe gave its consent. [3] The idea was to divest the tribes of jurisdiction in matters that were "deemed to be outside their competence". [4] In 1963, the state of Washington enacted a statute [5] to assume such jurisdiction. This statute provided that the state would only assume criminal jurisdiction with a tribe's consent, with eight exceptions. [fn 3] The tribe did not consent to the state assuming criminal jurisdiction, and objected to being subject to the eight listed exceptions. [1]

The tribe then filed suit in U.S. District Court seeking relief from the enforcement of the eight exceptions. The District Court rejected the tribe's claims and entered judgment for the state. The tribe then appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. After the original three judge panel heard oral arguments, the Court of Appeals decided sua sponte to hear the case en banc , on the limited question of whether the state could assume partial jurisdiction. The court found that there was no prohibition on the state assuming partial jurisdiction and referred the remainder of the case to the original three-judge panel. [1] [6]

The panel of the Court of Appeals found that the "checkerboard jurisdictional system" [1] violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found no way to separate the offending portion of the statute and declared the entirety of the state law unconstitutional. [7] The state then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari and requested that the parties brief the court on the issues of partial geographic and subject matter jurisdiction as well as the Equal Protection Clause. [1]

Arguments

The Yakama tribe argued first that the Washington state constitution did not allow the state to assume jurisdiction over Indians without a constitutional amendment. On becoming a state, Washington disclaimed any jurisdiction over Indian lands. [8] Both the tribe and the United States, as amicus curiae argued that to be able to apply Public Law 280, the state had to amend their constitution to assume jurisdiction. The state argued that the state legislature, in passing Chapter 36, had complied with the requirements of federal law to assume jurisdiction. [1]

The tribe also argued that since partial jurisdiction was not specifically authorized by Public Law 280, it was not authorized at all. The fact that the states that were mandated to assume criminal jurisdiction also had to assume civil jurisdiction throughout the Indian lands in those states. The tribe reasoned that the states that assumed jurisdiction voluntarily also had to assume total jurisdiction or none at all. The United States argued that the law was passed in order reduce federal monetary burdens, to enhance law enforcement protection for Indians, and to provide for assimilation of Indians into general society. [1]

Finally, the tribe argued that the "checkerboard" [1] violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, claiming that the classifications in Chapter 36 were racial ones and as such, suspect under McLaughlin v. Florida , 379 U.S. 184 (1964).

Decision

Majority opinion

Justice Potter Stewart delivered the opinion of the court. He dismissed the first argument, noting that the Enabling Act that made Washington a state merely required the consent of the United States and that Public Law 280 explicitly provided that consent was given provided that a state either amended their constitution or passed a statute to enable jurisdiction in Indian lands. The court ruled in favor of the state on that argument. [1] [9]

He agreed with a portion of the United States' second argument, that the law was passed for monetary burdens, tribal law enforcement protection, and assimilation. He stated that it was clear both from the legislative record and cited Bryan v. Itasca County , 426 U.S. 373 (1976) in support but then pointed out that the tribe's argument failed based on the reading of the law. An opt-in state, like Washington, which assumes partial jurisdiction, is nonetheless required by the statute to assume full jurisdiction upon the request of the tribe. He stated that the partial jurisdiction still left room for tribal self-government and reflected an attempt to accommodate the needs of both the tribe and the state. The court denied the second argument. [1]

The court also ruled against the tribe on their third argument, reversing the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court. Stewart noted that in dealing with Indian tribes that the federal government was able to enact "legislation that might otherwise be constitutionally offensive," citing Morton v. Mancari , 417 U.S. 535 (1974). While states do not have the same relationship with Indian tribes, Chapter 36 was enacted in specific response to a federal law that was designed to change the jurisdiction over the tribes. Thus, Chapter 36 did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. [1] [10] [11]

Dissenting opinion

Justice Marshall, author of the dissenting opinion Thurgood-marshall-2.jpg
Justice Marshall, author of the dissenting opinion

Justice Thurgood Marshall, joined by Justice William Brennan, dissented. Marshall noted that for over 140 years, the Supreme Court had decided that any statutory construction must be resolved in favor of the Indian tribe. In this case, the ambiguities in the law were resolved in favor of the state, instead of the tribe. He would have affirmed the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court. [1]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ In 1994, the spelling of the tribe's name was changed from Yakima to Yakama to reflect the name used in the treaty between the confederation of tribes and the U.S. The state still spells the city and county as Yakima.
  2. ↑ Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin
  3. ↑ The exceptions were compulsory school attendance, public assistance, domestic relations, mental illness, juvenile delinquency, adoption proceedings, dependent children, and motor vehicle operations.

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.

Public Law 280 is a federal law of the United States that changes legal jurisdiction on Indian lands and over Indian persons. The law transfers some jurisdiction from the federal government to states in both civil and criminal cases in certain places. It was passed in 1953.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Yakama Indian Reservation</span> Indian reservation in Washington, United States

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, 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 legal case in 1974 heard in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case re-affirmed the rights of American Indian tribes in the state of Washington to co-manage and continue to harvest salmon and other fish under the terms of various treaties with the U.S. government. The tribes ceded their land to the United States but reserved the right to fish as they always had. This included their traditional locations off the designated reservations.

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.

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.

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.

Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the jurisdiction of Tribal Courts when state officials are sued by tribal members in tribal court. The Supreme Court unanimously decided that Tribal courts lack jurisdiction to decide tort claims or § 1983 claims related to State law enforcement's process on the reservation, but related to a crime that allegedly occurred off the reservation nor must the parties exhaust their claims in Tribal court before filing in federal court.

<i>Seminole Tribe v. Butterworth</i>

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian country jurisdiction</span>

Indian country jurisdiction, or the extent which tribal powers apply to legal situations in the United States, has undergone many drastic shifts since the beginning of European settlement in America. Over time, federal statutes and Supreme Court rulings have designated more or less power to tribal governments, depending on federal policy toward Indians. Numerous Supreme Court decisions have created important precedents in Indian country jurisdiction, such as Worcester v. Georgia, Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe, Montana v. United States, and McGirt v. Oklahoma.

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.

South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress specifically abrogated treaty rights with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe as to hunting and fishing rights on reservation lands that were acquired for a reservoir.

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.

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

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.

Antoine v. Washington, 420 U.S. 194 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that treaties and laws must be construed in favor of Native Americans (Indians); that the Supremacy Clause precludes the application of state game laws to the tribe; that Congress showed no intent to subject the tribe to state jurisdiction for hunting; and while the state can regulate non-Indians in the ceded area, Indians must be exempted from such regulations.

United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that American Indians convicted on reservation land were not deprived of the equal protection of the laws; (a) the federal criminal statutes are not based on impermissible racial classifications but on political membership in an Indian tribe or nation; and (b) the challenged statutes do not violate equal protection. Indians or non-Indians can be charged with first-degree murder committed in a federal enclave.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463 (1979)
  2. ↑ Pub. L.   83–280
  3. ↑ Anderson, Robert T. (2003). "Criminal Jurisdiction, Tribal Courts and Public Defenders". Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y. 13: 139–152.
  4. ↑ Resnik, Judith (1989). "Dependent Sovereigns: Indian Tribes, States, and the Federal Courts". U. Chi. L. Rev. 56: 671–760.
  5. ↑ Revised Code of Washington, Section 37.12.010
  6. ↑ Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation v. Washington, 550F.2d443 (Ninth Cir.1977)("Yakima I").
  7. ↑ Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation v. Washington, 552F.2d1332 (Ninth Cir.1977)("Yakima II").
  8. ↑ Wash. Const. art. XXVI
  9. ↑ Peterson, Mark R.; Tong, May Lee (1983). "Indian Law". Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 13: 329–365.
  10. ↑ Chang, Howard F. (2002). "Public Benefits and Federal Authorization for Alienage Discrimination by the States". N.Y.U. L. Rev. 58: 357–370.
  11. ↑ Hartley, Roger C. (2007). "Congressional Devolution of Immigration Policymaking: A Separation of Powers Critique". Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol'y. 2: 93–157.
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.