Document: 524 U.S. 103118 S.Ct. 1904141 L.Ed.2d 90 108 F.3d 820, reversed in part. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES118 No. 97 174 CASS COUNTY, MINNESOTA, et al., PETITIONERS v. LEECH LAKE BAND CHIPPEWA INDIANS ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO STATES APPEALS FOR EIGHTH CIRCUIT [June 8, 1998] Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of Court. 1 We granted certiorari this case to resolve whether state and local governments may tax reservation land that was made alienable by Congress sold non-Indians Federal Government, but later repurchased a tribe. hold ad valorem taxes be imposed upon such because, under test established our precedents, has "unmistakably clear" its intent allow taxation. 2 * The Leech Lake Band Chippewa Indians is federally recognized Indian Reservation, which today encompasses 588,684 acres within northern Minnesota counties Cass, Itasca, Beltrami, federal treaty 1855 augmented subsequent treaties executive orders. 3 During late 19th century, Government changed policy setting aside lands exclusively for tribes supervision. new "allotment" removed significant portions from tribal ownership protection, allotting some parcels individual fee simple providing other non-Indians. See County Yakima Confederated Tribes Bands Nation, 502 251, 253 254 (1992); F. Cohen, Handbook Law 127 138 (1982). purpose assimilate into American society open Id., at 128. 4 Most allotments were implemented pursuant General Allotment Act 1887 (GAA), 24 Stat. 388, as amended, 25 U.S.C. § 331 seq. Section 5 GAA provided would patented held trust United States 25-year period, after convey title allottees "in fee, discharged said free all charge or incumbrance whatsoever. . And if any conveyance shall set apart allotted herein provided, contract touching same, before expiration time above mentioned, absolutely null void. ." 348. 6 GAA, originally enacted 1887, "each every member respective bands whom have been benefit subject laws, both civil criminal, State Territory they reside." 388. In 1905, Court interpreted §6 mean plenary jurisdiction immediately issuance patent. re Heff, 197 488 (1905). 7 following year, result Heff passing Burke Act, 34 182, 349 amended provide did not attach until end when conveyed fee. also contained proviso effect Secretary Interior could, "satisfied allottee competent capable managing his her affairs," authorize patent usual "and thereafter restrictions sale, incumbrance, taxation Ibid. 8 For Minnesota, allotment through Nelson 1889. 642. "complete cession relinquishment" except parts two reservations, States. After relinquishment," "operate[d] complete extinguishment title," disposed one three ways: §3, allot tribe members GAA; §§4 5, so-called "pine lands" (surveyed 40-acre lots with standing growing pine timber) public auction highest bidder; §6, remainder (called "agricultural lands") non-Indian settlers provisions Homestead 1862, 12 392. 9 1934, shifted dramatically Reorganization ch. 576, 48 984, 461 seq., ended practice making Indians. Although repeal statutes it extended period already yet fee-patented, unallotted surplus restored ownership, allowed additional "within without existing reservations" acquired tribes. §§461, 462, 463, 465. 10 1977, owned only about 27,000 less than five percent Reservation land. Forge, 262 N.W. 2d 341, 343, n. (Minn. 1977). Since then, sought re-establish base purchasing back during period. 11 1992, we supra, county could assess on GAA. 1993, Cass began assessing 21 had alienated control various reacquired Band. Thirteen §3; seven commercial timber harvest; parcel distributed homestead plot. Under protest avoid foreclosure, paid more $64,000 taxes, interest, penalties. 13 1995, filed suit court seeking declaratory judgment parcels.1 District summary favor County, holding taxable. 908 Supp. 689 1995). decision "if freely alienable, states land" is, "alienability equals taxability." 693. 14 A divided panel Appeals Eighth Circuit affirmed part 820 (1997). Noting reaffirmed prior statements indicating must make taxation, F.3d, 826, majority §3 taxed so long confirmed remand passage proviso, because explicit mention "taxation" manifested necessary intent. 827, 829 830. But further eight those sections, "unlike incorporate include an them might become fee." 829. 15 Judge Magill concurred taxability parcels, he dissented remaining view, propounded "the clear rule alienability allows taxation." 831. 16 certiorari, 522 ___ (1997), decide impose property non-Indians.2 II 17 " 'absent permitting it.' U.S., 258 (quoting Mescalero Apache Tribe Jones, 411 145, 148 (1973)). consistently declined find authorized unless 'made intention do unmistakably clear.' Yakima, Montana Blackfeet Tribe, 471 759, 765 (1985)). determined Indians, thus withdrawing protection. This Goudy Meath, 203 146 (1906), land, rendered status, even though either 18 Goudy, authorizing President issue patents Puyallup Tribe. issued plaintiff shortly Washington became State. March 16, 1854, between 1043, fee-patented "shall exempt levy, forfeiture" constitution adopted legislature Congress's consent. When State, passed law sale lands; thereafter, appointment commission power superintend lands, alienation selected Commission ten years date act." 27 633 (1893). 19 10-year expired, levied permissible alienable. 149 150. owner argued there no express exemption 1854 treaty, stated unnecessary: 20 "That grant voluntary while withholding forced conceded provision, should clearly manifested." Id, 149. concluded "seem strange [for Congress] withdraw [federal] protection permit dispose pleases, same releasing [the lands] Indeed, congressional unreasonable, "clearly manifest" contrary order counteract consequence ordinarily flows alienability. 22 considered Nation Indians.3 taxed, noted expressly addressing 259. indicated itself, §5 similarly taxation.4 reasoned "without mentioning proviso," 259, laws applied period: "[I]t [Goudy] found central significance." 263. (Emphasis deleted.) reiterated Goudy's point that, although possible render still forbid taxing it, unlikely arrangement presumed manifested" (internal quotation marks citation omitted). 23 erred concluding turned proviso's reference taxability. like stands proposition makes intends taxable governments, foregoing principle controls disposition case. §§5 agricultural "homestead" thereby fully therefore, conclusion fortiori Yakima: cases establish intended taxation; hence surely Appeals' attributes odd are assume general remain tax-exempt. essentially argues immunity lay dormant non-Indians, reacquisition non-taxable once again. reject contention. As explained, demonstrated (as here) statement non-taxable. 263 (citing 149). repurchase does manifest reassume oust authority particularly explicitly relinquished many before. 26 Further, accept Band's argument, partially superfluous §465 Act. That section grants place trust, government assuming status: "The authorized, discretion, acquire, purchase, relinquishment, gift, exchange, assignment, interest reservations 28 "Title taken name acquired, 29 §465, forth procedure It unnecessary, far concerned, tax-exempt status automatically attaches acquires apparently realizes this, 1995 successfully restore here. Complaint ¶ Affidavit Joseph Halloran support Plaintiff's Motion Summary Judgment, Civ. 95 99, V (DC Minn.); Tr. Oral Arg. 9.5 30 31 manifests cause status. here therefore §465. respect reversed. Notes 32 1. Also applied, 465 infra, 10; App. Pet. Cert. 56; 9. 33 2. denied cross-petition writ Band, review courts below 3. concerned Yakima's excise tribe, constitute "taxation land." 268 269 (1992). holding, however, relevant case, involves rather transaction. 35 4. noted, see 3, itself land; merely altered (1905), taxed. occurred soon (during government); occur 36 5. States, amicus, argue terms Nonintercourse provides: "No grant, lease, nation validity equity, convention entered Constitution." 177. 37 never 1834, applies Because outside question presented petition i (question "subject remains alienable"), addressed Appeals, decline consider first See, e.g., Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. Epstein, 516 367, 379, (1996) (declining address "outside scope Court" "we generally arguments basis below").

Category: 1