New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe
462 U.S. 324, 76 L. Ed. 2d 611, 1983 U.S. LEXIS 57 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
State laws are pre-empted by federal law when they interfere with a comprehensive tribal regulatory scheme authorized by federal law and designed to promote tribal self-government and economic development, unless the state can show a compelling interest justified by services it provides or significant off-reservation impacts.
Facts:
- The Mescalero Apache Tribe (Tribe) resides on a reservation in New Mexico, owning nearly all of the land within it.
- With substantial federal funding and assistance, the Tribe developed the reservation's hunting and fishing resources, creating artificial lakes stocked with fish from a federal hatchery.
- The federal government also helped the Tribe establish and manage a large elk herd on the reservation.
- Pursuant to its federally-approved constitution, the Tribe's Council established a comprehensive scheme of ordinances to regulate hunting and fishing by both tribal members and nonmembers.
- These tribal ordinances, which required approval from the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, established seasons and bag limits that often conflicted with New Mexico's state laws.
- The Tribe's ordinances specified that state licenses were not required for hunting or fishing on the reservation.
- The State of New Mexico did not contribute in any significant way to the development or maintenance of the reservation's fish and game resources.
- New Mexico's Department of Game and Fish began arresting non-Indian hunters on the reservation for possessing game that was legally taken under tribal rules but violated state regulations.
Procedural Posture:
- The Mescalero Apache Tribe filed suit against the State of New Mexico in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The District Court (trial court) ruled in favor of the Tribe.
- New Mexico, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision in favor of the Tribe, the appellee.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the appellate judgment, and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Montana v. United States.
- On remand, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit adhered to its earlier decision, again ruling for the Tribe.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted New Mexico'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 federal law, which authorizes and supports a comprehensive tribal regulatory scheme for on-reservation hunting and fishing, pre-empt a state's attempt to apply its own conflicting hunting and fishing regulations to nonmembers on the reservation?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
Yes. The application of New Mexico's hunting and fishing laws to nonmembers on the Mescalero Apache reservation is pre-empted by the operation of federal law. State jurisdiction is pre-empted if it interferes or is incompatible with federal and tribal interests reflected in federal law, unless the state's interests are sufficient to justify the assertion of its authority. Here, the federal and tribal interests in promoting tribal self-sufficiency and economic development are paramount, as evidenced by the comprehensive, federally-supported regulatory scheme for managing the reservation's resources. Concurrent state jurisdiction would effectively nullify the Tribe's authority, disturb this comprehensive scheme, and create an inconsistent dual system of regulation. New Mexico failed to identify any regulatory function, service, or off-reservation effect that would justify its intrusion, and its general interest in raising revenue is insufficient to overcome the strong federal and tribal interests.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the preemption doctrine in federal Indian law, establishing a balancing test that weighs federal and tribal interests against state interests. It significantly strengthens tribal sovereignty over on-reservation resource management and economic development, particularly when such activities are undertaken with federal support and approval. The ruling creates a high barrier for states seeking to regulate nonmember activities on tribal lands, requiring them to demonstrate a substantial and specific justification beyond a general interest in revenue or regulation. This precedent affirms that a comprehensive tribal regulatory framework, backed by federal law, can completely occupy the field and exclude state law.
Unlock the full brief for New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe