Montana v. United States
450 U.S. 544, 1981 U.S. LEXIS 9, 67 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1981)
Rule of Law:
An Indian tribe's inherent sovereign power does not extend to regulating hunting and fishing by non-members on lands within its reservation that are owned in fee simple by non-Indians. A tribe may retain civil jurisdiction over non-Indians on their fee lands only when they enter consensual relationships with the tribe or their conduct threatens the political integrity, economic security, or health and welfare of the tribe.
Facts:
- The First Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1851 designated territory for the Crow Tribe and specified that the signatory tribes did not 'surrender the privilege of hunting, fishing, or passing over' the lands.
- In 1868, the Second Treaty of Fort Laramie established the Crow Reservation, including land through which the Big Horn River flows, for the 'absolute and undisturbed use and occupation' of the Tribe.
- The General Allotment Act of 1887 and the Crow Allotment Act of 1920 authorized issuing fee patents to individual Indians, who could then alienate the land to non-Indians.
- Through this allotment and sale process, approximately 28% of the land within the Crow Reservation came to be owned in fee by non-Indians.
- The State of Montana has historically stocked the reservation's waters with fish, and a federal dam project made trout fishing possible in the Big Horn River.
- The Crow Tribal Council passed Resolution No. 74-05, which prohibited hunting and fishing within the reservation by anyone who was not a member of the Tribe.
- Montana continued to assert its own authority to regulate hunting and fishing by non-Indians on the reservation, creating a direct conflict with the Tribe's resolution.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States, as trustee for the Crow Tribe, sued the State of Montana in the U.S. District Court.
- The suit sought a declaratory judgment that the Tribe owned the Big Horn River bed and had the exclusive authority to regulate hunting and fishing within the reservation.
- The District Court, a trial court, denied the requested relief, holding that Montana owned the riverbed and that the Tribe lacked authority to regulate non-Indians on fee lands.
- The United States and the Tribe appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, holding that the riverbed was held in trust for the Tribe and that the Tribe could regulate hunting and fishing by non-members on fee lands.
- The U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court, granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
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 an Indian tribe have the authority to regulate hunting and fishing by non-members on land within its reservation owned in fee simple by non-Indians?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stewart
No. The inherent sovereign powers of an Indian tribe do not extend to the activities of nonmembers of the tribe on fee lands within the reservation. The Court first addressed the ownership of the Big Horn River bed, holding that the treaties did not overcome the strong presumption that the United States holds the beds of navigable waters in trust for future states under the 'equal footing' doctrine. The general treaty language granting 'absolute and undisturbed use and occupation' was insufficient to convey the riverbed. Regarding regulation, the Court found no such power in the treaties, as the right of use and occupation was diminished by the subsequent alienation of lands to non-Indians, as established in Puyallup III. The Court then held that a tribe's inherent sovereignty over non-members on non-Indian land is limited to two instances: (1) regulating the activities of non-members who enter into consensual relationships with the tribe or its members (e.g., through contracts or leases), and (2) exercising civil authority over non-member conduct that threatens or directly affects the tribe's political integrity, economic security, or health and welfare. As non-Indian hunting and fishing on fee lands did not fall into either of these exceptions, the Tribe lacked regulatory authority.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
Yes, as to the ownership of the riverbed, which should inform the Tribe's authority. The majority disregarded the rule that treaties must be construed as the Indians would have understood them. The Crow would have naturally understood that the grant of land for their 'absolute and undisturbed use' included the river running through its heart, especially as the U.S. was encouraging them to adopt a settled, agricultural lifestyle where fishing would be an important food source. The historical circumstances were analogous to those in Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, where the Court found a conveyance of a riverbed. By ignoring this context, the Court incorrectly concluded that title to the riverbed passed to Montana, undermining the foundation of the Tribe's authority over its own territory.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
No. The majority correctly applied the strong presumption against the conveyance of riverbeds to the Tribe. The Court's prior decision in United States v. Holt State Bank established that this presumption applies to Indian reservations. While Choctaw Nation created a narrow exception based on 'exceptional circumstances,' that case did not overrule the general principle from Holt State Bank. The circumstances of this case are not sufficiently exceptional to overcome the presumption, therefore title to the riverbed properly passed to Montana upon statehood.
Analysis:
This landmark decision significantly curtailed the scope of tribal civil jurisdiction and established a new framework for analyzing a tribe's authority over non-members. The 'Montana test,' with its two narrow exceptions, shifted the default rule from tribes having inherent territorial sovereignty to having authority primarily based on land ownership and specific, threatening conduct by non-members. This created a complex 'checkerboard' of jurisdiction on many reservations, where state and tribal authority can vary from one parcel of land to the next. The case remains a cornerstone of federal Indian law, defining the limits of tribal power over non-Indians on fee land within reservation boundaries.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Montana v. United States (1981)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"