Montana v. United States
| Decision Date | 24 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1128,79-1128 |
| Citation | 450 U.S. 544,67 L.Ed.2d 493,101 S.Ct. 1245 |
| Parties | State of MONTANA et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
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 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 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 this 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, 46 S.Ct. 197, 70 L.Ed. 465. 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, 97 S.Ct. 2616, 53 L.Ed.2d 667. 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, 98 S.Ct. 1079, 55 L.Ed.2d 303. Exercise of tribal power beyond what 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 threatened the Tribe's political or economic security as to justify tribal regulation. Pp. 563-567.
9 Cir., 604 F.2d 1162, reversed and remanded.
Urban L. Roth, Butte, Mont., for petitioners.
Thomas J. Lynaugh, Billings, Mont., for respondent Crow Tribe of Indians.
This case concerns the sources and scope 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, 100 S.Ct. 1645, 64 L.Ed.2d 234 to review a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that substantially upheld this claim.
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 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 Council has passed several resolutions 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 Tribe. The State of Montana, however, has continued to assert its authority to regulate hunting and fishing by non-Indians within the reservation.
On ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
UTE Indian Tribe of the Uintah v. Lawrence
...plain that no federal grant provides for tribal governance of nonmembers' conduct on land covered by [the main rule established in Montana v. United States ],’ " id. (quoting Strate v. A–1 Contrs. , 520 U.S. 438, 459 n. 14, 117 S.Ct. 1404, 137 L.Ed.2d 661 (1997) ), or when "it is otherwise ......
-
United States v. Ciampitti
...authorities. * * * * * * 8 With regard to the Government's power to take the property, see Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 551, 101 S.Ct. 1245, 1251, 67 L.Ed.2d 493 (1981), rehearing denied, 452 U.S. 911, 101 S.Ct. 3042, 69 L.Ed.2d 414 on remand, 657 F.2d 244, appeal after remand, 6......
-
People ex rel. Becerra v. Huber
...over action seeking paternity and child support order for child conceived on reservation); see Montana v. United States (1981) 450 U.S. 544, 564, 101 S.Ct. 1245, 67 L.Ed.2d 493 ("in addition to the power to punish tribal offenders, the Indian tribes retain their inherent power to determine ......
-
Tohono O'Odham Nation v. Schwartz
...of both Indians and non-Indians which are based upon events occurring on the Reservation. Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 565-66, 101 S.Ct. 1245, 1258, 67 L.Ed.2d 493 (1981); Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 65, 98 S.Ct. at 1680; see also Fisher v. District Court of Sixteenth Jud. Di......
-
Understanding Tribal Sovereignty: An Essential Primer for Productive Native American Relations
...adoption proceedings).33. FMC Corporation v. Shoshone-Ban-nock Tribes, 942 F.3d 916, 932 (9th Cir. 2019)(quoting Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 565 (1981).34. Id. (quoting Montana, 450 U.S. at 566).35. Id.36. Id.37. Id.38. Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145, 148-49 (1973......
-
The Sixth Circuit Extends The NLRA's Reach To Tribal-Owned Casinos
...about the reach of tribal ordinances to non-members on the reservation, the court applied the test coined in Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), rather than Coeur d'Alene. The Pueblo of San Juan court's holding conflicts with San Manuel's because, while San Manuel found that the ......
-
Supreme Court Docket Report - June 15, 2015
...one case of interest to the business community: Indian Tribes—Jurisdiction of Tribal Courts over Nonmembers In Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), the Supreme Court recognized that, as a general matter, the "inherent sovereign powers of an Indian Tribe do not extend to the activi......
-
Sovereign Immunity and State Regulation of Federal Facilities and Tribes
...located in areas of the reservation closed to the general public, but not property located in “open” areas); Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 565-68 (1981) (holding that the tribe had no authority to regulate non-Indian fishing and hunting on reservation land owned in fee by nonmembe......
-
The State Implementation Plan Process
...St. Regis Mohawks First Tribe to Receive EPA Approval for Tribal Implementation Plan , 38 Env’t Rep. (BNA) 2335 (Nov. 2, 2007). 75. 450 U.S. 544 (1981). consensual relationships with the tribe or its members, and it may regulate non-members’ land “when that conduct threatens or has some dir......
-
Denying Sovereignty: The Louisiana Supreme Court?s Rejection of the Tribal Exhaustion Doctrine
...the existence of three exceptions to the Doctrine, as well as the Court’s refusal to expand 63. Id. at 453 (Kimball, J., dissenting). 64 . 450 U.S. 544 (1981). 65 . Id. at 565–66; see Meyer , 992 So. 2d at 455 (Kimball, J., dissenting). 66 . See supra note 21 and accompanying text. 67 . Mey......
-
Native Treaties and Conditional Rights After Herrera.
...Law [section] 2.02[3] (Nell Jessup Newton et al. eds., LexisNexis 2017) [hereinafter Cohen's Handbook]; cf. Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 551-57 (1981) (ignoring the canons); Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191, 206-12 (1978) (35.) See Herrera, 139 S. Ct. at 1701; Was......