Other sources for recent
or older
Supreme Court decisions, an alphabetical
listing
and a chronological
listing with links to the decisions. Also see the note below..
Case Name |
Summary |
Majority |
Dissent |
Other
|
| Inyo County, CA, et al. v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community (2003) [02-281] | An Indian tribe did not qualify as a "person" who may sue under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, under the circumstances, in an action asserting sovereign immunity from state court processes arising from a county investigation into alleged off-reservation crimes. | Ginsburg, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Breyer | Stevens (concurrence) |
|
| United States v. Navajo Nation (2003) [01-1375] | The existence of a "general trust" relationship does not, by itself, subject the United States to damages | Ginsburg, Rehnquist, Scalia, Kenndy, Thomas, Breyer | Souter, Stevens, O'Connor | |
| United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe (2003) [01-1067] | The United States has a responsibility to maintain property that it holds in trust for an Indian tribe when it maintains control over the property | Souter, Stevens, O'Connor, Ginsburg, Breyer, | Thomas, Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy |
Ginsburg, Breyer (concurrence) |
| Nevada
v. Hicks, 121 S. Ct. 2304 (2001) |
Tribal Court has no jurisdiction over tort case against state officials who were investigating criminal activity by executing search on tribal trust lands; tribal courts lack authority to adjudicate federal civil rights claims | Scalia Rehnquist, Kennedy, Souter Thomas, Ginsburg |
Souter, Kennedy Thomas (concurrence) Ginsburg, (concurrence) O'Conner, Stevens, Breyer, (concurring in part and concurring in the judgment |
|
| Idaho
v. United
States, 121 S. Ct. 2135 (2001) |
Congress intended submerged lands under lake and river beds to be retained by the Tribe rather than pass to State under "Equal Footing" doctrine | Souter Stevens, O'Conner, Breyer and Ginsburg |
Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas | |
| Atkinson
Trading Co.
v. Shirley, 121
S. Ct. 1825 (2001) |
Tribe lacks authority to impose hotel occupancy tax on nonmember guests of hotel located on non-Indian fee land within reservation boundaries. | Rehnquist (unanimous) |
Souter, Kennedy, Thomas (concurrence) Montana test applies regardless of land status. |
|
| C
& L Enterprises, Inc., v. Citizen Band of Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 21 S. Ct. 1589 (2001) |
Arbitration provisions in contract between Tribe and contractor clearly waived tribal immunity from suit to enforce arbitration award | Ginsburg
unanimous |
||
| Department
of the Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs v. Klamath Water Users Protective Association, 532 U.S. 1 (2001) |
Freedom of Information Act requires Department of Interior to produce documents submitted by Indian tribes to Department during course of water rights proceedings. | Souter
(unanimous) |
||
| Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392 (2000) | Tribe may pursue claims for increased water rights; states' defense of res judicata waived by failure to raise. | Ginsburg,
Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer |
Rehnquist O'Conner, Thomas |
|
| Rice V. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 (2000) | “Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.” | Kennedy, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas | Stevens, Ginsburg Ginsburg |
Breyer, Souter concurring |
| Arizona
Dep't of Revenue v. Blaze Construction Co. Inc., 526 U.S. 172 (1999) |
Non-Indian contractor employed by federal government to work on tribal lands is subject to state taxation | Thomas (unanimous) |
||
| Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172 (1999) | A Presidential Executive Order did not revoke the Band’s hunting, fishing and gathering rights. "The President's power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” | O'Connor,
Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
Rehnquist,
Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas |
Thomas (separate dissent) |
| Saenz V. Roe 526 U.S. (1999 | The national government is limited to the Constitution, enumerated powers and the Fourteenth Amendment | Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, | Rehnquist, Thomas
Thomas, |
|
| El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Neztsosie 526 U.S. 473 (1999) | Price Anderson Act preempts claims in tribal court. | Souter
(unanimous) |
||
| Montana v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 23 U.S. 696 (1998) | Tribe cannot recover taxes improperly assessed against mineral lessee from State. | Ginsburg,
Rehnquist, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer |
Souter, O'Connor |
|
| Kiowa
Tribe of Oklahoma
v. Manufacturing
Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998) |
Tribe's sovereign immunity extends to off-reservation activities. | Kennedy,
Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Souter, Breyer |
Stevens,
Thomas, Ginsburg |
|
| Cass
County v. Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, 524 U.S. 103 (1998) |
Land owned in fee simple by tribes is not immune from state taxation. | Thomas
(unanimous) |
||
| Amoco Production Co. v. Southern Ute Indian Tribe, 526 U.S. 520 (1997) | Tribe does not own coal bed methane gas, despite owning subsurface estate of coal. | Kennedy Rehnquist, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, O'Connor, Breyer |
Ginsburg | |
| Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997) | No tribal court jurisdiction over case involving non-Indians that arises on state right of way | Ginsburg
(unanimous) |
||
| Babbitt v. Youpee, 519 U.S. 234 (1997) | Escheat provision of Indian Land Consolidation Act violates Fifth Amendment. | Ginsburg, Rehnquist, O'Connor Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Breyer | Stevens | |
| Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, 522 U.S. 520 (1997) | Tribal lands in Alaska are not "Indian Country," and tribes therefore lack authority to impose tax on business activities conducted on tribal land. | Thomas (unanimous) |
||
| Idaho
v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261 (1997) |
Eleventh Amendment bars suit by Tribe to quiet title to lake bed and surrounding tributaries. No Ex parte Young exception either. | Kennedy Rehnquist, w/O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas concurring in judgment |
Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer | |
| Seminole
Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) |
Congress cannot waive state's Eleventh Amendment immunity pursuant to Indian Commerce Clause. | Rehnquist, Scalia, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas |
Souter Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens |
|
| Oklahoma
Tax
Commission
v.
Chickasaw
Nation, 515 U.S. 450 (1995) |
State cannot apply motor fuel tax to fuels sold by the tribe in Indian Country; state could tax income of tribal members who work for the tribe but do not live in Indian Country. | Ginsburg, Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas w/ respect to all; unanimous w/respect to issue #1. |
Breyer, Stevens, O'Connor, Souter (dissenting as to issue re: taxation of income of tribal members). |
|
| Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena 000 U.S. U10252 (1995) |
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments require that any local, state or federal legislation that treats races differently be narrowly tailored; serve a compelling government interest; and be subject to strict scrutiny by the courts. | O'Conner Rehnquist, Kennedy, Thomas, Scalia |
Stevens,
filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg joined. Souter, filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg and Breyer joined. Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer joined. |
O'Conner
|
| Department
of Taxation and Finance of New York v. Milhelm Attea & Bros., Inc., 512 U.S. 61 (1994) |
State taxation of Indian wholesalers doing business on reservations upheld. | Stevens
(unanimous) |
||
| Oklahoma
Tax Commission v. Sac and Fox Nation, 508 U.S. 114 (1993) |
State cannot impose income taxes or motor vehicle taxes on tribal members who live in Indian Country. | O'Connor (unanimous) |
||
| Negonsott v. Samuels, 507 U.S. 99 (1993) | Kansas Act conferred jurisdiction to state over major offenses committed by or against Indians in Indian Country. | Rehnquist,
White, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Scalia, Thomas (exceptPart B) |
||
| Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182 (1993) | IHS decision to terminate health program for Indian children is committed to agency discretion by law and not subject to notice and comment requirements of APA. Trust relationship does not require IHS to "reorder its priorities." | Souter
(Unanimous) |
||
| Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (1993) | Uintah Indian Reservation diminished by Congress; no magic words required to find diminishment. | O'Connor,
Rehnquist, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg |
Blackmun, Souter |
|
| South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993) |
Tribe
cannot regulate non-Indians in area of reservation opened up by federal law
placing a dam and reservoir within reservation boundaries. |
Thomas,
Rehnquist, White, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy |
Blackmun, Souter |
|
| County
of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, 502 U.S. 251 (1992) |
County may, pursuant to Indian General Allotment Act, impose ad valorem tax on reservation land patented in fee, but may not enforce excise tax. | Scalia, Rehnquist, White, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas |
Blackmun: concurs re: no excise taxes, but dissents re: allowance of ad valorem taxes. |
|
| Oklahoma Tax Commission v.Citizen Band Potawatami Indian, Tribe of Oklahoma, 498 U.S. 505 (1991) | Tribe's sovereign immunity not waived by suing state to prevent collection of taxes, and State cannot impose taxes on Indian purchasers of cigarettes; but state may require tribe prospectively to collect taxes from non-Indian purchasers of cigarettes. | Rehnquist
(unanimous) |
Stevens
(concurrence) |
|
| Blatchford v.Native Village ofNoatak, 501 U.S.775(1991) | Eleventh Amendment bars suit by Alaska Native Village against State. | Scalia, Rehnquist , White, O'Connor, Kennedy. Souter |
Blackmun, Marshall, Stevens |
|
| Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990) | An Indian tribe may not assert criminal jurisdiction over a nonmember Indian. | Kennedy, Rehnquist, White, Blackman, Stevens, O'Connor, and Scalia | Brennan, Marshall |
|
| Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990) | Under our federal system, the States possess sovereignty concurrent with that of the Federal Government, subject only to limitations imposed by the Supremacy Clause. | O'Connor, Brennan, Marshall, Kennedy, Rehnquist, White, Blackman, Stevens, Scalia |
White concurring Scalia, |
|
| Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981) | The Tribe has no power to regulate non-Indian fishing and hunting on reservation land owned in fee by nonmembers. | Stewart, Burger, White, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens | Blackmun, Brennan, Marshall, dissenting in part |
Stevens, concurring |
| Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978) | Violations of ICRA can't be appealed to federal courts except for a writ of habeas corpus | Blackmun, Abstained Rehnquist, joined Parts I, II, IV, and V |
||
| United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978) | An Indian tribe may criminally punish a tribal member for violating tribal law, as an independent sovereign, and not as an arm of the Federal Government | Stewart Rehnquist, White, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, Marshall, Burger |
||
| Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978) | Indian tribal courts do not have inherent criminal jurisdiction to try and to punish non-Indians unless specifically authorized to do so by Congress | Rehnquist, Stewart, White, Blackmun, Powell, and Stevens | Marshall, Burger |
|
| Morton v. MancariI, 417 U.S. 535 (1974) | Indian preference does not constitute "racial discrimination" or even "racial" preference. | Blackmun, unanimous |
||
| Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) | Citizens abroad are protected by the Bill of Rights. The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution. | |||
| U S v. Nice , 241 U.S. 591 (1916) | Even if an Indian becomes a citizen, the federal government has jurisdiction over him so long as he remains a member of his tribe, under the charge of Indian agents, and so long as the United States holds in trust the title to land which has been allotted to him. | Van
Devanter (unanimous) |
||
| Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903) | Congress, using its plenary power may abrogate the provisions of an Indian treaty. | |||
| Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376 (1896) | The Bill of Rights does not apply to tribal government | White | Harlan | |
| U S v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886) | Indians are within the geographical limits of the United States. The soil and people within these limits are under the political control of the Government of the United States, or of the states of the Union. There exist within the broad domain of sovereignty but these two. | |||
| Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) | Chinese immigrants were protected from the unequal application of the law by the Fourteenth Amendment in states and territories. | |||
| Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) | To obtain citizenship, an Indian must separate from his tribe and be accepted by the U.S. as a citizen | |||
| Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) | Citizenship is limited to white persons born in the U.S. and those who have migrated to, and been naturalized by, the U.S. | |||
| Worchester v. State of Ga., 31 U.S. 515 (1832) | The federal government held exclusive power, as a result of the Constitution, to regulate with regard to the Cherokee Nation. Accordingly, the Cherokee Nation, as a distinct community, occupying its own territory, was completely separated from the States, and state law could have no force within those lands. | |||
| Cherokee Nation v. State of GA., 30 U.S. 1 (1831) | Tribes are "domestic dependent nations." They occupy a territory to which we assert a title independent of their will. Meanwhile they are in a state of pupilage. Their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian. | |||
| Johnson v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. 543, 5 L.Ed. 681, 8 Wheat. 543 (1823) | U.S. courts do not recognize Indians sale of titles of land to private individuals. The right of conquest or discovery left tribes with a possessory right that is subject to complete defeasance. | |||
| Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) | The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. A law repugnant to the constitution is void. | |||
Note: In current Indian law, it appears that regular procedural and mainline constitutional arguments, law and cases are gaining importance along with these traditional Indian law cases.