Lexplug logoLexplug

Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government

Supreme Court of the United States
140 L. Ed. 2d 30, 522 U.S. 520, 1998 U.S. LEXIS 1449 (1998)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

For land to be classified as a "dependent Indian community" under 18 U.S.C. § 1151(b), it must meet two requirements: it must have been set aside by the federal government for the use of Indians as Indian land, and it must be under the superintendence of the federal government.


Facts:

  • In 1943, the Secretary of the Interior created a reservation for the Neets’aii Gwich’in Indians in and around the Native Village of Venetie in northern Alaska.
  • In 1971, Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), which revoked all existing Native reservations in Alaska except one.
  • Under an ANCSA provision, two Native corporations representing the Neets’aii Gwich’in opted to receive fee simple title to the 1.8 million acres of their former reservation lands.
  • These two corporations subsequently transferred their title to the land to the Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government (Tribe).
  • In 1986, the State of Alaska hired a private contractor to construct a public school on the land owned by the Tribe.
  • The Tribe notified the contractor that it owed approximately $161,000 in taxes for conducting business activities on the Tribe's land.
  • The contractor and the State of Alaska, which was responsible for payment under their agreement, refused to pay the tax.

Procedural Posture:

  • The State of Alaska filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska to enjoin the Tribe's collection of the tax.
  • The District Court held that the Tribe's lands were not 'Indian country' and therefore the Tribe lacked the power to tax non-members.
  • The Tribe appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
  • The Ninth Circuit reversed, applying a six-factor test and concluding that the Tribe's land was a 'dependent Indian community' and thus Indian country.
  • The State of Alaska (petitioner) sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does land owned in fee simple by an Alaska Native tribe, pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), qualify as 'Indian country' under the 'dependent Indian communities' clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1151(b)?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Thomas

No. Land conveyed to an Alaska Native corporation in fee simple under ANCSA does not qualify as a 'dependent Indian community' and is therefore not 'Indian country.' The definition of a 'dependent Indian community' requires that the land meet a two-part test derived from the Court's precedents: it must be (1) set aside by the Federal Government for the use of the Indians as Indian land, and (2) under federal superintendence. The Tribe's land fails both requirements. First, ANCSA did the opposite of setting aside the land; it expressly revoked the Venetie Reservation with the stated goal of avoiding a reservation system. Because ANCSA allows the land to be alienated and used for non-Indian purposes, it does not meet the federal set-aside requirement. Second, ANCSA was designed to end the 'lengthy wardship or trusteeship' of the federal government, thus terminating federal superintendence. The provision of general federal social and economic programs to the Tribe does not constitute the active control over the land itself required to establish superintendence.



Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the definition of 'dependent Indian community,' replacing the multi-factor balancing tests used by some circuits with a stricter two-part test. The ruling emphasizes that congressional intent is paramount in determining the status of tribal lands and confirms that statutes aimed at terminating federal oversight, like ANCSA, effectively extinguish Indian country status. By rejecting the argument that the provision of federal aid constitutes 'superintendence,' the Court limits the scope of what can be considered Indian country to lands over which the federal government exercises direct control, impacting tribal jurisdiction on lands owned in fee simple.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government (1998) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government