Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 149.0

524US1

Unit: $U77

[09-06-00 18:33:44] PAGES PGT: OPIN

104

CASS COUNTY v. LEECH LAKE BAND OF
CHIPPEWA INDIANS
Syllabus

cause, under Yakima, if Congress has made Indian land freely alienable,
States may tax the land. The Eighth Circuit afﬁrmed in part and re-
versed in part, holding that the parcels allotted to Indians could be
taxed if patented under the Burke Act proviso, which made “unmistak-
ably clear” Congress’ intent to allow such taxation, but that the eight
parcels sold to non-Indians could not. Only those eight parcels are at
issue here.

Held: State and local governments may impose ad valorem taxes on res-
ervation land that was made alienable by Congress and sold to non-
Indians, but was later repurchased by the tribe. Pp. 110–115.

(a) Congress’ intent to authorize state and local taxation of Indian
reservation land must be “ ‘unmistakably clear.’ ” Yakima, supra, at
258. Congress has manifested such an intent when it has authorized
reservation lands to be allotted in fee to individual Indians, making the
lands freely alienable and withdrawing them from federal protection.
This was the case in both Yakima and Goudy v. Meath, 203 U. S. 146.
The Goudy Court concluded that, because it would be unreasonable for
Congress to withdraw federal protection and permit an Indian to dis-
pose of his lands as he pleased, while releasing the lands from taxation,
Congress would have to “clearly manifest” such a contrary purpose in
order to counteract the consequence of taxability that ordinarily ﬂows
from alienability.
Id., at 149. The Yakima Court found that both the
Burke Act proviso and § 5 of the GAA manifested an unmistakably clear
intent to allow state and local taxation of allotted land. The Eighth
Circuit thus erred in concluding that Yakima turned on the Burke Act
proviso’s express reference to taxability. Both it and Goudy stand for
the proposition that when Congress makes reservation lands freely
alienable, it is unmistakably clear that Congress intends that land to be
taxable by state and local governments, unless a contrary intent is
“clearly manifested.” Yakima, supra, at 259. Pp. 110–113.

(b) The foregoing principle controls the disposition of this case. By
providing for the public sale of reservation land to non-Indians in the
Nelson Act, Congress removed that land from federal protection and
made it fully alienable. Under Yakima and Goudy, therefore, it is tax-
able. The Eighth Circuit’s contrary holding attributes to Congress the
odd intent that parcels conveyed to Indians are taxable, while parcels
sold to the general public remain tax exempt. Contrary to the Band’s
argument, a tribe’s subsequent repurchase of alienable reservation land
does not manifest any congressional intent to reassume federal protec-
tion of the land and to oust state taxing authority, particularly when
Congress relinquished such protection many years before. Further,