White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker

Last updated
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued January 14, 1980
Decided June 27, 1980
Full case nameWhite Mountain Apache Tribe, et al. v. Bracker, et al.
Citations448 U.S. 136 ( more )
100 S. Ct. 2578; 65 L. Ed. 2d 665; 1980 U.S. LEXIS 52
Case history
PriorWhite Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 585 P.2d 891 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978); cert. granted, 444 U.S. 823(1979).
Holding
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
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
MajorityMarshall, joined by Burger, Brennan, White, Blackmun, Powell
ConcurrencePowell
DissentStevens, joined by Stewart, Rehnquist
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. 1, §8, cl. 3; 4 U.S.C.   § 104; 4 U.S.C.   § 105, et seq.

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. [1]

Contents

Background

Map showing the Fort Apache Indian Reservation (in red - upper half) Apachean present.png
Map showing the Fort Apache Indian Reservation (in red - upper half)

History

The Fort Apache Timber Company (FATCO) is a tribal enterprise created by the White Mountain Apache tribe contracted with the Pinetop Logging Company (Pinetop) in 1969 to transport and sell lumber harvested by FATCO on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation. The lumber itself is harvested from land held in trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for the benefit of the tribe. The BIA has a contract with FATCO to harvest the trees, but the BIA controlled which trees would be taken, the equipment to be used, where and what roads would be used and logging truck speeds. Pinetop vehicles do not leave the reservation, and only used roads built and maintained by BIA. In 1971, the Arizona Highway Department (now the Arizona Department of Transportation) sought to collect a motor carrier tax and a fuel tax from Pinetop. Pinetop paid under protest, and both Pinetop and the tribe sued to recover the taxes. [2] [1]

Lower courts

The Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, granted a summary judgment to the state and both the tribe and Pinetop appealed. At the Arizona Court of Appeals, Pinetop argued that McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n [3] prohibited the taxes that Arizona sought. The state argued that Pinetop was not part of the tribe and were not owned by Indians, and therefore the tax applied. The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court. [2] Both the tribe and Pinetop appealed, but the Arizona Supreme Court declined to review the decision. The United States Supreme Court then granted certiorari to hear the case. [1]

Opinion of the Court

Justice Thurgood Marshall delivered the opinion of the court. Marshall held that when a state seeks to assert authority over activities on a reservation by a non-Indian, that the court must look at the nature of the state, federal and tribal interests that are at stake. Here, the federal government, through the BIA, extensively regulated and controlled the timber operation and are so pervasive as to preclude any state taxation of the non-Indian contractor. The decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals was reversed. [1]

Concurrence

Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., concurred with the majority. The fact that the roads that Pinetop used were BIA or tribal roads would mean that the state was taxing for revenue that would not be needed to maintain the roads being used, and that this amounted to double taxation. [1]

Dissent

Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices Potter Stewart and William Rehnquist, dissented. Stevens believed that the state could tax Pinetop, and that it was not relevant as to whether those taxes were passed on to the tribe. He would have affirmed the decision. [1]

Related Research Articles

Navajo Nation Native American territory in the Southwestern United States

The Navajo Nation is an Indigenous American territory covering about 17,544,500 acres, occupying portions of northeastern Arizona, southeastern Utah, and northwestern New Mexico in the United States. This is the largest land area retained by an indigenous tribe in the United States. In 2010, the total population of Navajo tribal members was 332,129 with 173,667 living within the boundaries of the reservation and 158,462 tribal members outside of the reservation. Metropolitan areas accounted for 26 percent of the population, border towns accounted for ten percent, and the remaining 17 percent were living elsewhere in the U.S.

Public Law 280, is a federal law of the United States establishing "a method whereby States may assume jurisdiction over reservation Indians," as stated in McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission. 411 U.S. 164, 177 (1973).

The Schaghticoke are a Native American tribe of the Eastern Woodlands who historically consisted of Mahican, Potatuck, Weantinock, Tunxis, Podunk, and their descendants, peoples indigenous to what is now New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. The remnant tribes amalgamated in the area near the Connecticut-New York border after many losses.

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.

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.

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. Along with the watershed cases, United States v. Wheeler and Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, Santa Clara completed the trilogy of seminal Indian law cases to come down in the 1978 term.

Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the federal government could not take land into trust that was acquired by the Narragansett Tribe in the late 20th century, as it was not federally recognized until 1983. While well documented in historic records and surviving as a community, the tribe was largely dispossessed of its lands while under guardianship by the state of Rhode Island before suing in the 20th century.

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.

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.

Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145 (1973), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state could tax tribal, off-reservation business activities but could not impose a tax on tribal land, which was exempt from all forms of property taxes.

McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 411 U.S. 164 (1973), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States holding that Arizona has no jurisdiction to impose a tax on the income of Navajo Indians residing on the Navajo Reservation and whose income is wholly derived from reservation sources.

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.

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.

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

New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U.S. 324 (1983), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the application of New Mexico's laws to on-reservation hunting and fishing by nonmembers of the Tribe is preempted by the operation of federal law.

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.

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.

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.

Fort Apache Historic Park United States historic place

Fort Apache Historic Park is a tribal historic park of the White Mountain Apache, located at the former site of Fort Apache in the Fort Apache Indian Reservation. The park interprets the rich and troubled history of relations between the Apache and other Native American tribes at the fort, which was converted into a Bureau of Indian Affairs boarding school after its military use ended. The park, which covers 288 acres (117 ha) of the former fort and school, as well as a nearby military cemetery, form the National Historic Landmark Fort Apache and Theodore Roosevelt School historic district.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980).
  2. 1 2 White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 585P.2d891 (Ariz. Ct. App.1978).
  3. McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n , 411 U.S. 164 (1973).