Bryan v. Itasca County
1976 U.S. LEXIS 61, 48 L. Ed. 2d 710, 426 U.S. 373 (1976)
Rule of Law:
Public Law 280, which grants certain states civil jurisdiction over causes of action arising in Indian country, is not a grant of general state civil regulatory authority, including the power to tax, over reservation Indians and their property.
Facts:
- Russell Bryan is an enrolled member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe.
- Bryan resides in a mobile home on the Leech Lake Reservation in Minnesota.
- The land on which his mobile home is situated is held in trust by the United States for the Chippewa Tribe.
- In June 1972, Itasca County, Minnesota, notified Bryan that he had been assessed a personal property tax of $147.95 on his mobile home.
Procedural Posture:
- Russell Bryan sued Itasca County in the Minnesota District Court (a state trial court), seeking a declaratory judgment that the county lacked authority to impose the tax.
- The Minnesota District Court rejected Bryan's claim and entered judgment for Itasca County.
- Bryan, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding that Public Law 280 was a clear grant of the power to tax.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Bryan's petition for a writ of certiorari.
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 § 4 of Public Law 280, which grants certain states jurisdiction over civil causes of action to which Indians are parties, constitute a congressional grant of authority to those states to impose a personal property tax on a reservation Indian's property located on the reservation?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
No. Section 4 of Public Law 280 does not grant states the authority to tax reservation Indians. States are disabled from taxing reservation Indians and their on-reservation property absent express congressional consent. A review of Public Law 280's legislative history and statutory language reveals that it was intended only to grant states adjudicatory jurisdiction over private civil litigation involving Indians, not broad civil regulatory power. The primary concern of Congress was to address lawlessness on reservations and provide a judicial forum for resolving private disputes. There is a total absence of any discussion in the legislative record of an intent to confer taxing authority, a significant change that would have been mentioned if intended. Furthermore, canons of statutory construction require that statutes affecting Indian immunities be construed liberally in favor of the Indians, and any congressional intent to abrogate such immunities must be clearly expressed. Contemporaneous termination acts passed by the same Congress contained explicit language subjecting Indians to state taxation, and the absence of such language in Public Law 280 indicates that no such power was granted.
Analysis:
This decision is a cornerstone of federal Indian law, establishing a critical distinction between a state's adjudicatory jurisdiction and its regulatory jurisdiction in Indian country. By narrowly construing Public Law 280, the Court significantly protected tribal sovereignty from state regulatory encroachment, preventing states from using the jurisdictional grant as a foothold to impose taxes and other regulations. The case powerfully reinforces the canon of construction that congressional intent to diminish tribal sovereignty or abrogate Indian immunities must be clear and express, not implied from ambiguous statutory language. This principle forces Congress to be explicit, thereby safeguarding tribal self-governance from unintended erosion through broad judicial interpretations of federal statutes.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Bryan v. Itasca County (1976)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"