450 U.S. 544 (1981), 79-1128, Montana v. United States

Docket NºNo. 79-1128
Citation450 U.S. 544, 101 S.Ct. 1245, 67 L.Ed.2d 493
Party NameMontana v. United States
Case DateMarch 24, 1981
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Page 544

450 U.S. 544 (1981)

101 S.Ct. 1245, 67 L.Ed.2d 493

Montana

v.

United States

No. 79-1128

United States Supreme Court

March 24, 1981

Argued December 3, 1980

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

By a tribal regulation, the Crow Tribe of Montana sought to prohibit hunting and fishing within its reservation by anyone who is not a member of the Tribe. Relying on its purported ownership of the bed of the Big Horn River, on treaties which created its reservation, and on its inherent power as a sovereign, the Tribe claimed authority to prohibit hunting and fishing by nonmembers of the Tribe even on lands within the reservation owned in fee simple by non-Indians. Montana, however, continued to assert its authority to regulate hunting and fishing by non-Indians within the reservation. The First Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1851, in which the signatory tribes acknowledged various designated lands as their respective territories, specified that, by making the treaty, the tribes did not "surrender the privilege of hunting, fishing, or passing over" any of the lands in dispute. In 1868, the Second Treaty of Fort Laramie established the Crow Reservation, including land through which the Big Horn River flows, and provided that the reservation "shall be . . . set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation" of the Tribe, and that no non-Indians except Government agents "shall ever be permitted to pass over, settle upon, or reside in" the reservation. To resolve the conflict between the Tribe and the State, the United States, proceeding in its own right and as fiduciary for the Tribe, filed the present action, seeking a declaratory judgment quieting title to [101 S.Ct. 1248] the riverbed in the United States as trustee for the Tribe and establishing that the Tribe and the United States have sole authority to regulate hunting and fishing within the reservation, and an injunction requiring Montana to secure the Tribe's permission before issuing hunting or fishing licenses for use within the reservation. The District Court denied relief, but the Court of Appeals reversed. It held that the bed and banks of the river were held by the United States in trust for the Tribe; that the Tribe could regulate hunting and fishing within the reservation by nonmembers, except for hunting and fishing on fee lands by resident nonmember owners of those lands; and that nonmembers permitted by the Tribe to hunt or fish within the reservation remained subject to Montana's fish and game laws.

Held:

1. Title to the bed of the Big Horn River passed to Montana upon

Page 545

its admission into the Union, the United States not having conveyed beneficial ownership of the riverbed to the Crow Tribe by the treaties of 1851 or 1868. As a general principle, the Federal Government holds lands under navigable waters in trust for future States, to be granted to such States when they enter the Union, and there is a strong presumption against conveyance of such lands by the United States. The 1851 treaty failed to overcome t.his presumption, since it did not, by its terms, formally convey any land to the Indians at all. And whatever property rights the 1868 treaty created, its language is not strong enough to overcome the presumption against the sovereign's conveyance of the riverbed. Cf. United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49. Moreover, the situation of the Crow Indians at the time of the treaties presented no "public exigency" which would have required Congress to depart from its policy of reserving ownership of beds under navigable waters for the future States. Pp. 550-557.

2. Although the Tribe may prohibit or regulate hunting or fishing by nonmembers on land belonging to the Tribe or held by the United States in trust for the Tribe, it has no power to regulate non-Indian fishing and hunting on reservation land owned in fee by nonmembers of the Tribe. Pp. 557-567.

(a) The 1851 treaty nowhere suggested that Congress intended to grant such power to the Tribe. And while the 1868 treaty obligated the United States to prohibit most non-Indians from residing on or passing through reservation lands used and occupied by the Tribe, thereby arguably conferring upon the Tribe authority to control fishing and hunting on those lands, that authority can only extend to land on which the Tribe exercises "absolute and undisturbed use and occupation," and cannot apply to subsequently alienated lands held in fee by non-Indians. Cf. Puyallup Tribe v. Washington Game Dept., 433 U.S. 165. Nor does the federal trespass statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1165, which prohibits trespassing to hunt or fish, "augment" the Tribe's regulatory powers over non-Indian lands. That statute is limited to lands owned by Indians, held in trust by the United States for Indians, or reserved for use by Indians, and Congress deliberately excluded fee-patented lands from its scope. Pp. 557-563.

(b) The Tribe's "inherent sovereignty" does not support its regulation of non-Indian hunting and fishing on non-Indian lands within the reservation. Through their original incorporation into the United States, as well as through specific treaties and statutes, the Indian tribes have lost many of the attributes of sovereignty, particularly as to the relations between a tribe and nonmembers of the tribe. United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313. Exercise of tribal power beyond what

Page 546

is necessary to protect tribal self-government or to control internal relations is inconsistent with the dependent status of the tribes, and so cannot survive without express congressional delegation. Here, regulation of hunting and fishing by nonmembers of the Tribe on lands no longer owned by the Tribe bears no clear relationship to tribal self-government or internal relations. Non-Indian hunters and fishermen on non-Indian fee land do not enter any agreements or dealings with the Tribe so as to subject themselves to tribal civil jurisdiction. And nothing suggests that such non-Indian hunting and fishing so threaten the Tribe's political or economic security as to justify tribal regulation. Pp. 563-567.

604 F.2d 1162, reversed and remanded.

STEWART, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE, POWELL, REHNQUIST and STEVENS, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 567. BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion dissenting in part, in which BRENNAN and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 569.

Page 547

STEWART, J., lead opinion

JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case concerns the sources and cope of the power of an Indian tribe to regulate hunting and fishing by non-Indians on lands within its reservation owned in fee simple by non-Indians. Relying on its purported ownership of the bed of the Big Horn River, on the treaties which created its reservation, and on its inherent power as a sovereign, the Crow Tribe of Montana claims the authority to prohibit all hunting and fishing by nonmembers of the Tribe on non-Indian property within reservation boundaries. We granted certiorari, 445 U.S. 960, to review a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that substantially upheld this claim.

I

The Crow Indians originated in Canada, but some three centuries ago they migrated to what is now southern Montana. In the 19th century, warfare between the Crows and several other tribes led the tribes and the United States to sign the First Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1851, in which the

Page 548

signatory tribes acknowledged various designated lands as their respective territories. See 11 Stat. 749 and 2 C. Kappler, Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties 594 (1904) (hereinafter Kappler). The treaty identified approximately 38.5 million acres as Crow territory and, in Article 5, specified that, by making the treaty, the tribes did not "surrender the privilege of hunting, fishing, or passing over" any of the lands in dispute. In 1868, the Second Treaty of Fort Laramie established a Crow Reservation of roughly 8 million acres, including land through which the Big Horn River flows. 15 Stat. 649. By Article II of the treaty, the United States agreed that the reservation "shall be . . . set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation" of the Crow Tribe, and that no non-Indians except agents of the Government "shall ever be permitted to pass over, settle upon, or reside in" the reservation.

Several subsequent Acts of Congress reduced the reservation to slightly fewer than 2.3 million acres. See 22 Stat. 42 (1882); § 31, 26 Stat. 1039-1040 (1891); ch. 1624, 33 Stat. 352 (1904); ch. 890, 50 Stat. 884 (1937). In addition, the General Allotment Act of 1887, ch. 119, 24 Stat. 388, and the Crow Allotment Act of 1920, 41 Stat. 751, authorized the issuance of patents in fee to individual Indian allottees within the reservation. Under these Acts, an allottee could alienate his land to a non-Indian after holding it for 25 years. Today, roughly 52 percent of the reservation is allotted to members of the Tribe and held by the United States in trust for them, 17 percent is held in trust for the Tribe itself, and approximately 28 percent is held in fee by non-Indians. The State of Montana owns in fee simple 2 percent of the reservation, the United States less than 1 percent.

Since the 1920's, the State of Montana has stocked the waters of the reservation with fish, and the construction of a dam by the United States made trout fishing in the Big Horn River possible. The reservation also contains game, some of it stocked by the State. Since the 1950's, the Crow Tribal

Page 549

Council has passed several resolutions [101 S.Ct. 1250] respecting hunting and fishing on the reservation, including Resolution No. 74-05, the occasion for this lawsuit. That resolution prohibits hunting and fishing within the reservation by anyone who is not a member of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
134 practice notes
  • Federal and Indian lands programs: Indian lands; definition clarification; agency decision,
    • United States
    • Federal Register April 25, 2007
    • April 25, 2007
    ...tribal sovereignty, treaties with the United States, and delegation from the United States Congress [citing Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 563- 65 (1981)]. Walter E. Stern, Environmental Regulation on Indian Lands: A Business Perspective. 7-SPG Nat. Resources & Env't 20-21 (199......
  • Part III
    • United States
    • Federal Register April 25, 2007
    • April 25, 2007
    ...tribal sovereignty, treaties with the United States, and delegation from the United States Congress [citing Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 563- 65 (1981)]. Walter E. Stern, Environmental Regulation on Indian Lands: A Business Perspective. 7-SPG Nat. Resources & Env't 20-21 (199......
  • Rights-of-Way on Indian Land
    • United States
    • Federal Register November 19, 2015
    • November 19, 2015
    ...fee land. Response: The proposed language regarding a consensual relationship was derived from the decision in Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 565 (1981). As commenters pointed out, Montana's general rule limiting tribal authority over nonmembers' activities and its two exceptions, ......
  • The law of Native American hunting, fishing and gathering rights outside of reservation boundaries in the United States and Canada.
    • United States
    • Canada-United States Law Journal Vol. 39 Nbr. 1, March 2014
    • January 1, 2015
    ...governmental functions). (17) Nevada, 533 U.S. 353; South Dakota v. Gregg Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993); Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981). (18) Wisconsin v. Baker, 698 F.2d 1323, 1333 (1983) (holding that Indian tribe may not exclusively regulate fishing on lakes located within......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino, (2004)
    • United States
    • May 28, 2004
    ...subject to the overriding authority of the United States, yet retaining necessary powers of internal self-governance”); Montana v. U.S., 450 U.S. 544, 564 (1981) (noting “implicit divestiture of sovereignty” where “relations between an Indian tribe and nonmem-bers of the tribe” are at issue......
  • Foxwoods Resort Casino, (2008)
    • United States
    • April 1, 2008
    ...the exercise of the Board’s jurisdiction in the instant matter. In support of this claim, the Employer cites Montana v. United States,450 U.S. 544 (1981), where the Supreme Court determined that an Indian tribe was not authorized to regulate the hunting and fishing rights of non-Indians on ......
  • Foxwoods Resort Casino, (2007)
    • United States
    • October 24, 2007
    ...the exercise of the Board’s jurisdiction in the instant matter. In support of this claim, the Employer cites Montana v. United States,450 U.S. 544 (1981), where the Supreme Court determined that an Indian tribe was not authorized to regulate the hunting and fishing rights of non-Indians on ......
  • Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise d/b/a Foxwoods Resort and Casino, (2010)
    • United States
    • October 14, 2010
    ...of the Board’s jurisdiction in the instant matter. In support of this claim, the Employer previously cited Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), where the Supreme Court determined that an Indian tribe was not authorized to regulate the hunting and fishing rights of non-Indians on t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 firm's commentaries
  • A Guide to Indian Law in Washington
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • July 13, 2004
    ...to keep this analysis more simp le, the terms "Indian" and "non-Indian" will be used. 48 See, e.g., Montana v. U.S., 450 U.S. 544 (1981); Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation,†492 U.S. 408 (1989) South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993); Strate......
  • The Wind River Reservation Treatment-as-State Controversy: How Confusion Undermines Opportunities for Cooperative Governance
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • June 19, 2014
    ...of Missouri Indians, 480 U.S. 202, 207 n.5 (1987). [14] 18 U.S.C. § 1151(a). [15] Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 565 (1981). The second Montana exception does not apply [16] See Brendale v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of Yakima Indian Nation, 492 U.S. 408, 430-31 (1989) (recogn......
  • Negotiating with a Tribe or Tribal Entity: Practical Tips for Franchisors
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • September 18, 2014
    ...property or any interest therein”). 108. Puyallup Tribe v. Dep’t of Game, 433 U.S. 165, 172 (1977). 109. See Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 566 (1981) (“Indian tribes retain sovereign power to exercise some forms of civil jurisdiction over non-Indians on their reserva- 48 Franchise......
  • Tribal Utility Development Energy Development And Services On Tribal Land
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • April 12, 2019
    ...U.S. 136 (1980) (establishing balancing test for state jurisdiction over non-Indian activity on tribal lands); Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981) (tribe's authority over non- Indian activity on non-Indian fee land within the Indian reservation); Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
69 books & journal articles
8 provisions
  • Rights-of-Way on Indian Land
    • United States
    • Federal Register November 19, 2015
    • November 19, 2015
    ...fee land. Response: The proposed language regarding a consensual relationship was derived from the decision in Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 565 (1981). As commenters pointed out, Montana's general rule limiting tribal authority over nonmembers' activities and its two exceptions, ......
  • Establishment of a Domestic Hemp Production Program
    • United States
    • Agricultural Marketing Service
    • Invalid date
    ...regard to the Indian Tribe's ability to demonstrate inherent regulatory authority under the factors set forth in Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981). Because Congress did not define Territory of the Indian Tribe in the AMA and did not include discussion in the legislative history ......
  • Revised Interpretation of Clean Water Act Tribal Provision
    • United States
    • Federal Register May 16, 2016
    • May 16, 2016
    ...of inherent tribal authority over such non-member activities are guided by the principles expressed in Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), and its Page 30186 EPA recognized at the time that there was significant support for the proposition that Congress had intended to delegate a......
  • Treatment of Indian Tribes in a Similar Manner as States for Purposes of Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act
    • United States
    • Federal Register September 26, 2016
    • September 26, 2016
    ...over the activities of non-tribal members on lands they own in fee within a reservation under the principles of Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), and its progeny. Montana held that, absent a federal grant of authority, tribes generally lack inherent civil jurisdiction over nonm......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT