Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 156

524US1

Unit: $U77

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

Cite as: 524 U. S. 103 (1998)

111

Opinion of the Court

such an intent when it has authorized reservation lands to
be allotted in fee to individual Indians, thus making the lands
freely alienable and withdrawing them from federal protec-
tion. This was the case in both Yakima and Goudy v.
Meath, 203 U. S. 146 (1906), in which this Court held that
land, allotted and patented in fee to individual Indians and
thus rendered freely alienable after the expiration of federal
trust status, was subject to county ad valorem taxes even
though it was within a reservation and held by either indi-
vidual Indians or a tribe.

In Goudy, Congress had made reservation land alienable
by authorizing the President to issue patents to individual
members of the Puyallup Tribe. The President issued such
a patent to the plaintiff shortly before Washington became a
State. The treaty of March 16, 1854, between the United
States and the Puyallup Tribe, 10 Stat. 1043, provided that
such fee-patented land “shall be exempt from levy, sale, or
forfeiture” until a state constitution was adopted and the
state legislature removed the restrictions with Congress’
consent. When Washington became a State, its legislature
passed a law authorizing the sale of reservation lands;
shortly thereafter, Congress authorized the appointment of
a commission with the power to superintend the sale of those
lands, with the proviso that “the Indian allottees shall not
have power of alienation of the allotted lands not selected
for sale by said Commission for a period of ten years from
the date of the passage of this act.”

27 Stat. 633 (1893).

When the 10-year period expired, the county levied an ad
valorem tax on the land. This Court held that the tax was
permissible because the land was freely alienable. Goudy v.
Meath, 203 U. S., at 149–150. Although the Indian patent
owner argued that there had been no express repeal of the
exemption provided by the 1854 treaty, this Court stated
that such an express repeal was unnecessary:

“That Congress may grant the power of voluntary sale,
while withholding the land from taxation or forced alien-