Opinion ID: 3048734
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Minimal Burden Test

Text: [13] The district court also properly held that the minimal burden test, which the Supreme Court has used in balancing state laws against inherent tribal sovereignty rights,16 is not applicable here. Neither the Supreme Court nor this Circuit have applied such a balancing test in the context of treaty rights. The Supreme Court decisions cited by the Government only briefly mention Indian treaties, if at all, and apply the minimal burden test solely in relation to tribal sovereignty rights. See Colville, 447 U.S. 134; Moe, 425 U.S. 463. Similarly, in our decisions discussing both treaty rights and the minimal burden test, we conduct two separate analyses: first, 15 Additionally, if this alleged purpose — leveling the playing field — were sufficient to meet the regulatory exception, it would call our holding in Cree II into question. The “fair playing field” argument applies with equal force to the State’s efforts to collect truck license and permit fees from Indian-owned timber companies. 16 Indian tribes retain “inherent sovereign powers” that they “enjoy[ ] apart from express provision by treaty or statute.” Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438, 445 (1997); see also Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130, 137-41 (1982) (discussing tribal sovereignty). However, state laws that impose only minimal burdens on these rights may be permissible. See Colville, 447 U.S. at 151; Moe, 425 U.S. at 483. 5856 UNITED STATES v. SMISKIN we determine whether the state law violates a specific treaty right; then, only if no treaty right is violated, we ask whether the state law nonetheless imposes more than a minimal burden on tribal sovereignty rights. See, e.g., Baker, 63 F.3d 1478. Because the Yakamas’ treaty right to travel is violated here, we do not reach the second step. The district court’s decision is further supported by the Court’s analysis in Tulee, which did not apply a minimal burden test despite describing the state law as not particularly intrusive.17 See 315 U.S. at 864-65 (“Even though this method may be both convenient and, in its general impact fair, it acts upon the Indians as a charge for exercising the very right their ancestors intended to reserve.”).