Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 157.0

524US1

Unit: $U77

[09-06-00 18:33:45] PAGES PGT: OPIN

112

CASS COUNTY v. LEECH LAKE BAND OF
CHIPPEWA INDIANS
Opinion of the Court

ation may be conceded. . . . But while Congress may
make such provision, its intent to do so should be clearly
manifested.”

Id, at 149.

The Goudy Court concluded that it would “seem strange [for
Congress] to withdraw [federal] protection and permit the
Indian to dispose of his lands as he pleases, while at the same
time releasing [the lands] from taxation.”
Indeed,
because such congressional purpose would be unreasonable,
Congress would have to “clearly manifest” such a contrary
purpose in order to counteract the consequence of taxability
that ordinarily ﬂows from alienability.

Ibid.

Ibid.

In Yakima, we considered whether the GAA manifested
an unmistakably clear intent to allow state and local taxation
of reservation lands allotted under the GAA and owned in
fee by either the Yakima Indian Nation or individual Indi-
ans.3
In holding that the lands could be taxed, we noted
that the Burke Act proviso clearly manifested such an intent
by expressly addressing the taxability of fee-patented land.
502 U. S., at 259. We also indicated that the alienability of
allotted lands itself, as provided by § 5 of the GAA, similarly
manifested an unmistakably clear intent to allow taxation.4
We reasoned that Goudy, “without even mentioning the

3 We are concerned here only with Yakima’s holding with respect to ad
valorem taxes such as those at issue in this case. Yakima also held that
the GAA did not authorize the county to impose an excise tax on the sale
of land held by individual Indians or by the tribe, because such a tax did
not constitute the “taxation of land.” See County of Yakima v. Confeder-
ated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation, 502 U. S. 251, 268–269 (1992).
That holding, however, is not relevant to this case, which involves only an
ad valorem tax on land itself, rather than an excise tax on a transaction.
4 The Burke Act proviso, as noted, see supra, at 107, did not itself author-
ize taxation of fee-patented land; it merely altered the result of In re Heff,
197 U. S. 488 (1905), as to when parcels allotted to the Indians could be
alienated and taxed.
In re Heff had held this occurred as soon as allotted
lands were patented to the Indians in trust (during which the land would
still be under the protection of the Federal Government); the Burke Act
proviso stated that this did not occur until the lands were patented in fee.