Document: 400 U.S. 423 91 S.Ct. 480 27 L.Ed.2d 507 Robert KENNERLY et al.v.DISTRICT COURT OF the NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT MONTANA al. No. 5370. Jan. 18, 1971. PER CURIAM. 1 This case arises on petition for certiorari from a judgment of Supreme Court Montana. The and motion to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. For reasons appearing below, we vacate Montana remand further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. 2 Petitioners members Blackfeet Indian Tribe reside Reservation tribe is duly organized under Reorganization Act June 1934, 48 Stat. 984, 25 U.S.C. § 461 seq. In July August 1964, petitioners purchased some food credit grocery store located within town limits Browning, incorporated laws but exterior boundaries Reservation. 3 A suit was commenced state courts against debt arising these transactions. moved dismiss ground that lacked jurisdiction because defendants were transactions took place reservation. lower court overruled petitioners, pursuant rules procedure, petitioned 'writ supervisory control' review ruling. State affirmed. 4 Prior passage Title IV Civil Rights 1968, 82 78, §§ 1321—1326 (1964 ed., Supp. V), discussed infra, assumption civil jurisdiction—in situations where Congress had explicitly extended jurisdiction1—was governed by 7 15, 1953, 67 590. Section statute provided: 5 'The consent United States hereby given any other having respect criminal offenses or causes action, both, as provided (referring 4, see n. 1, supra), assume at such time manner people shall, affirmative legislative obligate bind thereof.' 6 Pursuant statute, Legislature enacted Chapter 81, Laws 1963 ( 083—801, 83—806, Rev.Codes Ann. (1966)), extending criminal, civil, over Indians Flathead But never 'affirmative action'—concerning either jurisdiction—with However, November 20, 1967, Tribal Council adopted 2, Action, part Law Order Code, which provides, relevant part: 8 shall have concurrent exclusive all suits wherein defendant member brought before Courts. * *' 9 relied pre-1968 action an alternative basis assertion instant litigation.2 Williams v. Lee, 358 217, 79 269, 251 (1959), non-Indian Navajo out transaction Arizona upheld exercise reversed. case, attempted reconcile its result theory transfer unilateral tribal consistent powers self-government.3 154 Mont. 488, 466 P.2d 85. 10 Williams, process discussing general question impinging affairs reservation Indians, noted '(e) ssentially, absent governing Acts Congress, has always been whether infringed right make their own be ruled them.' U.S., 220, S.Ct., 271. With regard particular extension country, there was, resolution, 'governing Congress,' i.e., 1953. conditioned action' State; made no provision whatsoever consent, necessary sufficient condition jurisdiction. Nor requirement idle choice words; history 1953 shows intended assure would until jurisdictions responsible portion country concerned manifested political willingness ability discharge new responsibilities. See H.R.Rep.No. 848, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., 6, (1953); supra, 220—221, 270—271. Our conclusion force reinforced comprehensive detailed congressional scrutiny those instances undertaken extend certain country. supra. 11 went note absence meaning Act. 222—223, 271—272. Here it conceded insufficient vest 12 remaining manifestation council can operate 1968. 1968 repealed Act4 substituted regulatory scheme litigation involving V). 402(a) Act, 1322(a) dealing jurisdiction, provides: 13 between parties arise areas situated assume, occupying thereof affected assumption, measure may determined same extent application private persons property effect they elsewhere State.' 14 406 1326 then 15 'State acquired subchapter applicable only enrolled area accept majority vote adult voting special election held purpose. Secretary Interior call regulations he prescribe, when requested do so body, 20 per centum adults.' 16 We think provisions clear: prerequisite must country.5 Legislative does comport explicit requirements 17 Finally, enactment, presents concerning power tribes time, geographical, conditions 'tribal consent' Rather, presented solely procedures Thus suggestion dissent that, today's disposition, '(t)he now choose one hand permanent, irrevocable other,' incorrect.6 18 vacated remanded 19 It ordered. Judgment remanded. 21 Mr. Justice STEWART, whom WHITE joins, dissenting. 22 involve infringing 'the 271, 251. To contrary, complained here expressly authorized law. c. 1. holds law invalid restricted selfgovernment specifying procedure confer them. 23 I did intend enacting 590, successor section, 402(a), 406, 1322, invalidate legislation authorizes take actions tribe. plain me statutes reflect determination need protective limitations permanently authorized. find pass reason suppose will effectuate purpose Congress. When rests legislation, distinct permanent federal authorization, interests fully protected repeal grant thereby return courts. 24 decision reached today substantially frustrates productive self-government unjustifiably reduces options available them other.* means temporary inability maintain court, cede time. also option trial period authority laws. cannot believe withdraw options. seems quite wrong enactment Council, party litigation, without first giving opportunity least submit brief support legislation. Before deciding Solicitor General views States, whose interprets controlling. should thought most basic principles fair play dictate like request strikes down invalid. example, 589, 28 1360(a), five States. illustrative traditionally bear 588, 1162 committed accorded sections statute. As 403(b) 79, 1323(b) 'such affect cession (§ 7) prior repeal.' Further, 402 govern appear cover presently after since Counsel preceded Act—and court's reasoning vested point time—we consider validity State's well sought distinguish outright plaintiff had, point, secured writ attachment Indian-owned livestock Reservation, bringing into policies livestock. set aside very upon opinion distinguishing ground. 83 Ariz. 241, 247—248, 319 998, 1002—1003 (1958). Respondent seek judgment, and, course, Court's makes reference attachment. history. offered principally sponsored Senator Ervin North Carolina amendment way substitute H.R. 2516, eventually became 114 Cong.Rec. 393—395. IV, stated, id., 394: 'This title repeals section (of Act) assert acquiring referendum reservated Indians.' S.Rep.No.721, 90th 32 (1967) (additional Sen. Ervin). Ervin's proposals Dirksen 5836—5838. dissent's rebutting footnote infers express allowance selective intent exclude That inference obviously compelled language structure full text quoted above, response needed. reiterate, however, procedural mechanisms registered. suggests dilemma imaginary attach consent. fail understand how problem avoided way. assumed determines scope *.' (Emphasis added.)

Category: 1