Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 158

524US1

Unit: $U77

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

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

113

Opinion of the Court

Burke Act proviso,” 502 U. S., at 259, had held that state tax
laws applied to the Indian allottee at the expiration of the
trust period: “[I]t was the alienability of the allotted lands
. . . that the [Goudy] Court found of central signiﬁcance.”
Id., at 263 (emphasis deleted). And we reiterated Goudy’s
point that, although it is possible for Congress to render res-
ervation land alienable and still forbid States to tax it, this
unlikely arrangement would not be presumed unless Con-
502 U. S., at 263
gress “clearly manifested” such an intent.
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The Court of Appeals thus erred in concluding that our
holding in Yakima turned on the Burke Act proviso’s express
reference to taxability. Yakima, like Goudy, stands for the
proposition that when Congress makes reservation lands
freely alienable, it is “unmistakably clear” that Congress in-
tends that land to be taxable by state and local governments,
502 U. S.,
unless a contrary intent is “clearly manifested.”
at 263.

The foregoing principle controls the disposition of this
case.
In §§ 5 and 6 of the Nelson Act, Congress provided for
the public sale of pine lands and agricultural “homestead”
lands by the Federal Government to non-Indians. Congress
thereby removed that reservation land from federal protec-
tion and made it fully alienable. Under Goudy and Yakima,
Indeed, this conclusion ﬂows a forti-
therefore, it is taxable.
ori from Goudy and Yakima: Those cases establish that Con-
gress clearly intended reservation lands conveyed in fee to
Indians to be subject to taxation; hence Congress surely in-
tended reservation lands conveyed in fee to non-Indians also
to be taxable. The Court of Appeals’ contrary holding at-
tributes to Congress the odd intent that parcels conveyed to
Indians are to assume taxable status, while parcels sold to
the general public are to remain tax exempt.

The Band essentially argues that, although its tax immu-
nity lay dormant during the period when the eight parcels
were held by non-Indians, its reacquisition of the lands in