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

Heading: The “Regulatory” Exception

Text: [10] In resolving conflicts between state laws and Indian treaties, the Supreme Court has provided a narrow exception to the inviolability of treaty rights, holding that “pure regulations” — restrictions imposed for a public purpose unrelated to revenue generation — may be validly applied to tribal members, treaty rights notwithstanding. For instance, in addressing the State of Washington’s fishing license fees and the “right to fish” provided by the Yakama Treaty, the Court held that the State retained the “power to impose on Indians equally with others such restrictions of a purely regulatory nature . . . as are necessary for the conservation of fish.” Tulee, 315 U.S. at 684 (emphasis added); see also Puyallup Tribe, 391 U.S. at 401 n.14 (“As to a ‘regulation’ concerning the time and manner of fishing outside the reservation (as opposed to a ‘tax’), we said that the power of the State was to be measured by whether it was ‘necessary for the conserva13 Also, it is not clear that post-treaty conduct points in the direction that the Government suggests. See Yakama Indian Nation, 955 F. Supp. at 1245 (noting that most individual Indian vehicle owners did not in fact license their vehicles despite the State’s requirement); see also Cree II, 157 F.3d at 773 (“While examining the parties’ actions may be helpful in construing a treaty, in this case, post-Treaty activity is inconclusive.” (citation omitted)). 5854 UNITED STATES v. SMISKIN tion of fish.’ ” (quoting Tulee, 315 U.S. at 684)). The Court concluded, however, that the State’s fishing license fees did not fall within this exception, and thus could not be imposed on tribal members, because they were “regulatory as well as revenue producing” and were not indispensable to the regulatory purpose of fish conservation. Tulee, 315 U.S. at 685. As the Court noted, the stated purpose of the licensing act was to generate revenue for “the support of the state government and its existing public institutions.” Id. [11] Similarly here, Washington’s stated purpose for requiring cigarette stamps, and hence for requiring notice before unstamped cigarettes are transported within the State, is to “enforce collection of the tax hereby levied.” Rev. Code Wash. § 82.24.030; see also Baker, 63 F.3d at 1486-87 (discussing in detail the State’s scheme for enforcing cigarette taxes through these requirements). Because the primary purpose of tax collection is to generate state revenue, the district court in the instant case correctly determined that the State’s notice requirement does not fall within the Court’s “purely regulatory” exception, and that its application to Yakama tribal members is precluded by the Yakama Treaty.14 [12] The Government’s suggestion that the State’s tax collection efforts have a purpose beyond revenue generation does not change our analysis. Arguably, the State seeks to enforce 14 Although we did not expressly address the regulatory exception in Cree II, the district court’s analysis in Yakama Indian Nation is instructive. Yakama Indian Nation held that the State license and permit fees could not supersede the Yakamas’ treaty right because the fees were “predominantly revenue-raising rather than regulatory” and not “indispensable” to any regulatory purpose. 955 F. Supp. at 1256. The court properly recognized, however, that tribal members must still comply with State “regulations designed to preserve and maintain the condition of roads” and “registration requirements solely for identification purposes,” insofar as the regulations do not impose any fees (presumably, the imposition of fees would be compelling evidence of an impermissible revenue generating purpose on top of the regulatory purpose). Id. at 1260; see also id. at 1257. UNITED STATES v. SMISKIN 5855 taxes on cigarette sales from Indians to non-Indians in part to ensure a “fair playing field” for Indian and non-Indian cigarette retailers. However, even assuming that the State has such a purpose, a restriction must be purely regulatory to supersede an Indian treaty right. Because revenue generation is at least a significant purpose of the State’s cigarette tax scheme, as the Government concedes, the scheme is not purely regulatory. Additionally, a state regulation must be “necessary” to its regulatory purpose to supersede a treaty right. The prenotification requirement is not necessary to the State’s alleged purpose of leveling the playing field because there are other ways it could enforce the tax on cigarette sales by Indian tribes to non-Indians.15 See infra Part II. E.