Opinion ID: 153836
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tribal Jurisdiction Over Allotted Lands

Text: 10 Mustang argues that the Tribes do not have authority over the allotted lands and thus cannot tax oil and gas production on those lands. Mustang contends that the Tribes lost jurisdiction over all of the lands in the 1869 reservation, including allotted lands, when the 1890 Agreement disestablished the reservation. According to Mustang, when the Agreement set aside allotted lands for individual tribal members, it also divested the Tribe of its jurisdiction over those lands. 11 As the district court correctly concluded, however, disestablishment of the reservation is not dispositive of the question of tribal jurisdiction. Mustang, 890 F.Supp. at 1001. In order to determine whether the Tribes have jurisdiction we must instead look to whether the land in question is Indian country. See Indian Country U.S.A. Inc. v. Oklahoma, 829 F.2d 967, 973 (10th Cir.1987) ([T]he Indian country classification is the benchmark for approaching the allocation of federal, tribal and state authority with respect to Indians and Indian lands.). Indian country encompasses those areas that have been validly set apart for the use of the Indians as such, under the superintendence of the Government. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe, 498 U.S. 505, 511, 111 S.Ct. 905, 910, 112 L.Ed.2d 1112 (1991) (quoting United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634, 648-49, 98 S.Ct. 2541, 2548-49, 57 L.Ed.2d 489 (1978)). 12 In Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Sac and Fox Nation, 508 U.S. 114, 123, 113 S.Ct. 1985, 1991, 124 L.Ed.2d 30 (1993), the Supreme Court specifically stated that Indian allotments, whether restricted or held in trust by the United States, are Indian country. In that case, the state argued that members of the Sac and Fox Nation were subject to state taxation because an 1891 treaty disestablished their reservation. Id. at 121, 113 S.Ct. at 1989. The Court rejected this argument and held that a tribal member need not live on a formal reservation to be outside the State's taxing jurisdiction; it is enough that the member live in 'Indian country.'  Id. at 123, 113 S.Ct. at 1991. 13 Mustang argues that Sac and Fox Nation does not apply because the issue in that case was a state's, rather than a tribe's, civil jurisdiction. We agree with the district court, however, that [t]he issue is analogous--whether one government can tax citizens of another government engaging in activities on allotted lands. Mustang, 890 F.Supp. at 1001. Indian tribes are 'domestic dependent nations' that exercise inherent sovereign authority over their members and territories. Potawatomi Indian Tribe, 498 U.S. at 509, 111 S.Ct. at 909 (quoting Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1, 17, 8 L.Ed. 25 (1831)). The sovereign authority of Indian tribes includes the inherent power to tax non-Indians who conduct business on tribal lands and who benefit from governmental services provided by the tribes. Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130, 137, 140-41, 102 S.Ct. 894, 901, 903-04, 71 L.Ed.2d 21 (1982). As discussed above, Indian tribes have jurisdiction over lands that are Indian country, and allotted lands constitute Indian country. See DeCoteau v. District County Court, 420 U.S. 425, 446, 95 S.Ct. 1082, 1094, 43 L.Ed.2d 300 (1975) (noting that allotments provide an adequate fulcrum for tribal affairs and that there is exclusive tribal and federal jurisdiction over allotted lands). Thus, we agree with the district court that the Tribes have an inherent sovereign power to tax economic activities on their lands, and because the allotted lands are within their jurisdiction, the Tribes have the power to enact and enforce a severance tax on oil and gas production from allotted lands. Mustang, 890 F.Supp. at 1003. 14 Mustang argues that the Tribes would have authority over allotted lands only if Congress passed an act specifically granting them jurisdiction, and that the Indian country statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1151 et. seq., grants criminal but not civil jurisdiction over allotted lands. The Indian country statute defines Indian country to include all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same. 18 U.S.C. § 1151(c). Although the statute appears in Title 18, which deals primarily with crimes and criminal procedures, the Supreme Court has held that § 1151 applies to civil jurisdiction as well. DeCoteau, 420 U.S. at 427 n. 2, 95 S.Ct. at 1084 n. 2; see also Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining v. Watchman, 52 F.3d 1531, n. 10 (10th Cir.1995) ([T]he principle that § 1151 defines Indian country for both civil and criminal jurisdiction purposes is firmly established. Any suggestion to the contrary ... is simply erroneous.). Thus, Mustang's argument that § 1151 does not apply to civil jurisdiction is incorrect, and the statute supports our conclusion that the Tribes have jurisdiction over the allotted lands. 15 The language of the 1891 Act, which ratified verbatim the agreement between the Tribes and the United States, also supports our conclusion. Article II of the Act provides: 16 Subject to the allotment of land in severalty to the individual members of the Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes of Indians, as hereinafter provided for and subject to the conditions hereinafter imposed, for the considerations hereinafter mentioned the said Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians hereby cede, convey, transfer, relinquish, and surrender forever and absolutely, without any reservation whatever, express or implied, all their claim, title and interest, of every kind and character, in and to the lands [in the 1869 reservation]. 17 26 Stat. 989, 1022 (emphasis added). The subject to the allotment of land clause modifies the cession language and expressly conditions the cession of some lands on the allotment of other lands. In addition, the subject to the allotment of lands provision implicitly excludes the allotted lands from the ceded lands. Therefore, the comprehensive terms of the cession do not apply to the allotted lands. 18 Article III of the Act describes the details of the allotment procedure: 19 Out of the lands ceded, conveyed, transferred, relinquished, and surrendered by Article II hereof, and in part consideration for the cession of lands named in the preceding article, it is agreed by the United States that each member of the said Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes of Indians over the age of eighteen years shall have the right to select for himself or herself one hundred and sixty acres of land, to be held and owned in severalty.... 20 26 Stat. 989, 1023 (emphasis added). Mustang contends that because allotments were selected out of the lands ceded, the allotted lands were ceded as well. This reading of the provision is incorrect. Article III merely describes who was entitled to allotments, identifies the land from which the allotments were to be selected, and describes the size of the allotments--it says nothing about which land is ceded, a subject covered in Articles I and II. Article I unconditionally cedes the land that was mistakenly reserved to the Tribes. Article II cedes the land in the 1869 reservation, but not unconditionally: the cession in Article II is subject to allotment. The plain language of the Act indicates that while the allotted lands were selected from the lands ceded, the allotted lands themselves were not ceded. Instead, the allotted lands were set aside for the use of the Indians, remaining part of Indian country even after the reservation was disestablished. 21 In conclusion, we hold that the allotted lands constitute Indian country over which the Tribes have civil jurisdiction. Thus, the Tribes have the power to enact and enforce a severance tax on oil and gas produced on allotted lands. Accordingly, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.