Opinion ID: 493961
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tribal Authority

Text: 23 Before we may consider Yakima Nation's interest in regulating non-member fee land, we must determine whether it possesses the requisite regulatory authority. The Supreme Court has long recognized the inherent attributes of sovereignty [in Indian tribes] over both their members and their territory. Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. LaPlante, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 971, 975, 94 L.Ed.2d 10 (1987) (quoting United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544, 557, 95 S.Ct. 710, 717, 42 L.Ed.2d 706 (1975)). Yakima Nation derives authority not only implicitly from its status as a dependent sovereign, but explicitly from the Treaty with the Yakimas, 12 Stat. 951, 2 Kapplers 524 (1855), in which Yakima Nation and the United States agreed that Yakima Nation reserved to itself and was guaranteed a right to its own government and its own laws. 24 Tribal authority extends to regulation over the activities of non-Indians on reservation lands. Iowa Mutual, 107 S.Ct. at 978. Such authority, however, is more limited than that over Indians. The Supreme Court has, without apparent consistency, applied two tests to determine the limit on tribal authority over the conduct of non-Indians. In Washington v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U.S. 134, 100 S.Ct. 2069, 65 L.Ed.2d 10 (1980), the Court held that tribal sovereignty is divested only when its exercise is inconsistent with overriding federal interests. [I]t must be remembered that tribal sovereignty is dependent on, and subordinate to, only the Federal Government, not the States. Id. at 154, 100 S.Ct. at 2081. Nine months later, the Supreme Court in Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 101 S.Ct. 1245, 67 L.Ed.2d 493 (1981), reiterated language disregarded by Colville, that Indian tribes have been implicitly divested of their sovereignty to regulate relations between the tribe and nonmembers by virtue of their dependent status. Id. at 563-64 101 S.Ct. at 1257-58 (citing United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 98 S.Ct. 1079, 55 L.Ed.2d 303 (1978)). The Court held that the exercise of tribal power beyond what is necessary to protect tribal self-government or to control internal relations is inconsistent with the dependent status of the tribes, and so cannot survive without express congressional delegation. Id. 450 U.S. at 564, 101 S.Ct. at 1258. 25 The Montana Court identified two exceptions to the limitation on tribal regulatory authority over non-members. The exceptions stem from inherent tribal authority over the tribe's members and to manage its territory as well as the power to exclude non-members from its reservation. Anderson, 736 F.2d at 1364; Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 592 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 926, 104 S.Ct. 1707, 80 L.Ed.2d 180 (1984). A tribe retains authority to regulate the activities of nonmembers who enter consensual relationships with the tribe or its members, through commercial dealing, contracts, leases, or other arrangements. Montana, 450 U.S. at 565, 100 S.Ct. at 1258. A tribe also retains inherent regulatory authority over the conduct of non-Indians on fee land when the conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe. Id. at 566, 100 S.Ct. at 1258 (the tribal interest test). 26 Yakima Nation asserts that we should apply the Colville test and hold that it has authority to zone non-Indian fee land under that test. Because we conclude that Yakima Nation has authority under the more stringent tribal-interest test employed in Montana, we need not determine whether the Colville analysis is appropriate to determine tribal authority over non-Indians. 1 27 We recently held that [i]t is beyond question that land use regulation is within the Tribe's legitimate sovereign authority over its lands. Segundo, 813 F.2d at 1393 (holding that a city could not apply its rent control ordinance in conflict with tribal ordinance to non-Indians on reservation trust land). Zoning, in particular, traditionally has been considered an appropriate exercise of the police power of a local government, precisely because it is designed to promote the health and welfare of its citizens. See Knight v. Shoshone and Arapahoe Indian Tribes of the Wind River Reservation, 670 F.2d 900, 903 (10th Cir.1982); see generally Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926). By enacting zoning ordinances, a tribe attempts to protect against the damage caused by uncontrolled development, which can affect all of the residents and land of the reservation. 2 Tribal zoning is particularly important because of the unique relationship of Indians to their lands. Comment, Jurisdiction to Zone Indian Reservations, 53 Wash.L.Rev. 677, 680 (1978). 28 Further, a major goal of zoning is the systematic and coordinated utilization of land in a particular area. N. Williams, American Land Planning Law, Sec. 1.06 (1974), cited in Comment, 53 Wash.L.Rev. at 679. Comprehensive planning enables a centralized regulatory authority to balance the competing needs of landowners and to distribute land uses in a desirable pattern. Id. at Sec. 1.08, cited in Comment, 53 Wash.L.Rev. at 685. Yakima Nation has exclusive authority to zone tribal trust land, which constitutes nearly all of the closed area and over half of the open area. Although the fee land owned by non-Indians is clustered primarily in one part of the reservation, the reservation still exhibits essentially a checkerboard pattern. If we were to deny Yakima Nation the right to regulate fee land owned by non-Indians, we would destroy their capacity to engage in comprehensive planning, so fundamental to a zoning scheme. This we are unwilling to do.