Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
Page Number: 81.0

36 

MCGIRT v. OKLAHOMA 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

State and tribal authority are also transformed.  As to the 
State, its authority is clouded in significant respects when 
land is designated a reservation.  Under our precedents, for 
example, state regulation of even non-Indians is preempted 
if  it  runs  afoul  of  federal  Indian  policy  and  tribal  sover-
eignty based on a nebulous balancing test.  This test lacks 
any “rigid rule”; it instead calls for a “particularized inquiry 
into the nature of the state, federal, and tribal interests at 
stake,” contemplated in light of the “broad policies that un-
derlie” relevant treaties and statutes and “notions of sover-
eignty  that  have  developed  from  historical  traditions  of 
tribal  independence.”  White  Mountain  Apache  Tribe  v. 
Bracker,  448  U. S.  136,  142,  144–145  (1980).    This  test 
mires state efforts to regulate on reservation lands in sig-
nificant uncertainty, guaranteeing that many efforts will be
deemed  permissible  only  after  extensive  litigation,  if  at 
all.10 

In  addition  to  undermining  state  authority,  reservation 
status adds an additional, complicated layer of governance 
over the massive territory here, conferring on tribal govern-
ment power over numerous areas of life—including powers 
over non-Indian citizens and businesses.  Under our prece-
dents, tribes may regulate non-Indian conduct on reserva-
tion land, so long as the conduct stems from a “consensual 

—————— 

10 See, e.g., White Mountain Apache Tribe, 448 U. S., at 148–151 (bar-
ring State from imposing motor carrier license tax and fuel use taxes on
non-Indian logging companies that harvested timber on a reservation); 
Warren  Trading  Post  Co. v. Arizona  Tax Comm’n,  380  U. S.  685,  690– 
692  (1965)  (barring  State  from  taxing  income  earned  by  a  non-Indian 
who operated a trading post on a reservation); New Mexico v. Mescalero 
Apache Tribe, 462 U. S. 324, 325 (1983) (barring State from regulating
hunting and fishing by non-Indians on a reservation); see also Brendale 
v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation, 492 U. S. 408, 448 
(1989) (opinion of Stevens, J.) (arguing that it is “impossible to articulate
precise rules that will govern whenever a tribe asserts that a land use 
approved by a county board is pre-empted by federal law”).