Court Opinion

ID: 9465511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:48:21.594933+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:12.995612
License: Public Domain

BOWNES, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur with my brothers in all but one respect of the opinion, namely its treatment of the .lower court’s instructions on the definition of “tribe.” The majority suggests that it is not ruling on whether the instructions are correct as a matter of law, but *595simply ruling that the instructions conform to the plaintiff’s view of the law. Ante at 587. There is an understandable reluctance not to be placed in a straight-jacket by embracing one definition for all time and for all circumstances. However, I believe that the district court’s instructions were correct as a matter of law, that they comported with the applicable standards as set forth in Montoya v. United States, 180 U.S. 261, 266, 21 S.Ct. 358, 45 L.Ed. 521 (1901), and that we have a duty to find the instructions legally correct or incorrect and not merely whether they harmonized with one party’s view of the appropriate legal standards. Both the district court’s delineation of what constitutes “tribe” as well as this court’s extensive explication should, in my opinion, serve as a firm foundation for future cases dealing with this sensitive and difficult issue. I would not shy away from reliance on these instructions and our comments thereon in future cases.