Court Opinion

ID: 9430035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:28:45.402069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:22.599315
License: Public Domain

Justice White,
with whom Justice Rehnquist and Justice Stevens join, dissenting.
The question is whether the proviso to the Act of May 29, 1924, ch. 210, 43 Stat. 244, 25 U. S. C. § 398, authorizes a *769State to tax oil and gas production under leases entered into under the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938, ch. 198, 52 Stat. 347, 25 U. S. C. §§396a-396g. In my view, the proviso constitutes a sufficiently explicit expression of congressional intent to permit such taxation.
The majority apparently does not rest its contrary holding on the conclusion that the 1938 Act repealed, the taxing authority contained in the 1924 Act. Although the majority does not appear to come to rest on the question whether the taxing proviso has been repealed, it is clear to me (as it was to both the majority and the dissent in the Court of Appeals) that the 1938 Act did not repeal the proviso. The 1938 Act repealed only Acts inconsistent with its terms, see ch. 198, §7, 52 Stat. 347, and there is no suggestion that taxation of mineral leases is actually inconsistent with any of the provisions of the 1938 Act. Indeed, given that the 1938 Act and its legislative history are completely silent on the question of taxation, it cannot seriously be suggested that the 1938 Act specifically repealed any taxing authority that might otherwise exist under the 1924 Act.
The question thus boils down to whether the taxing proviso, by its terms, applies to leases under the 1938 Act.* The answer must be sought in the terms of the proviso itself. The majority concludes that the 1924 Act cannot be read to apply to leases under the 1938 Act. I must disagree.
The proviso to the 1924 Act states that “the production of oil and gas and other minerals on such lands may be taxed by the State in which said lands are located in all respects the same as production on unrestricted lands” (emphasis added). The permission to tax in the proviso depends only on the *770character of the lands on which production takes place; accordingly, the dispositive question here is whether the lands the Blackfeet have leased under the 1938 Act are “such lands” within the meaning of the proviso.
The phrase “such lands” in the proviso refers to “[Un-allotted land on Indian reservations other than lands of the Five Civilized Tribes and the Osage Reservation subject to lease for mining purposes for a period of ten years under the proviso to section 3 of the Act of February 28, 1891 [ch. 383, § 3, 26 Stat. 795].” The 1891 Act, now codified at 25 U. S. C. § 397, allowed mineral leasing of “lands . . . occupied by Indians who have bought and paid for the same, and which lands are not needed for farming or agricultural purposes, and are not desired for individual allotments.” Thus, the proviso by its express terms applies to unallotted lands on Indian reservations “bought and paid for” by the Indians and not needed for agricultural purposes.
The lands that the Blackfeet have leased under the 1938 Act clearly fall within this description: they are unallotted reservation lands not needed for agricultural purposes. Moreover, in British-American Oil Producing Co. v. Board of Equalization of Montana, 299 U. S. 159 (1936), this Court held that the Blackfeet Reservation was “bought and paid for” within the meaning of the proviso — that is, the reservation is the product of an agreement by which the Blackfeet gave up certain rights in exchange for the reservation. See id., at 162-164. Because the leases are located “on such lands” as are described by the 1924 proviso, I can only conclude that the taxation of oil and gas production under the leases is expressly authorized by the proviso and is therefore lawful.
In so concluding, I am mindful of the general rule that statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of Indian tribes. But more to the point, to my way of thinking, is the proposition that this rule is no more than a canon of construction, and “[a] canon of construction is not a license to disregard *771clear expressions of . . . congressional intent.” Rice v. Rehner, 463 U. S. 713, 733 (1983). The proviso to the 1924 Act is a clear expression of congressional intent to allow the States to tax mineral production under leases of lands described in the Act; the proviso has never been repealed; and the lands that the Blackfeet have leased under the 1938 Act fall within the proviso’s description of lands on which mineral production is subject to taxation.
Respondent suggests, and the majority seems to agree, see ante, at 767, n. 5, that this result is to be avoided because state taxation of mineral production on leaseholds created under the 1938 Act is somehow contrary to the “policy” of the 1938 Act. The relevant policies seem to have been promoting uniformity in the law governing tribal authority to enter into mineral leases, preserving the independence of Indian tribes, and guaranteeing the tribes a fair return on properties leased for mineral production. But it is far from clear that Congress saw state taxation of mineral production to be a threat to any of these goals; as the majority concedes, the legislative history is barren of any indication that taxation by the States was one of the evils Congress sought to eradicate through, the 1938 Act. This omission is particularly striking given that at the time the statute was under consideration, this Court had just handed down its ruling in British-American Oil Producing Co., supra, which held that production on leases located on reservations created by treaty or legislation was subject to state taxation under the proviso to the 1924 Act. To me, the absence of any comment in the legislative history pertaining to state taxation confirms that we should give effect to the express language of the 1924 proviso authorizing the state taxes at issue here.
Finally, I consider it relevant, though not dispositive, that the suggestion that the 1924 Act does not authorize taxation of production on 1938 Act leases is contrary to the interpretation of both Acts that apparently prevailed in the Department of the Interior until 1977. Opinions issued by the *772Office of the Solicitor of the Interior in the years following the passage of the 1938 Act discussed the scope of state authority to tax under the proviso to the 1924 Act with no mention of the possibility that the 1938 Act had had any effect on such authority. See 58 I. D. 535 (1943); Opinion of the Department of Interior, M-36246, Oct. 29, 1954, 2 Op. Solicitor of Dept. of Interior Relating to Indian Affairs 1917-1974, p. 1652 (1979); Opinion of the Department of Interior, M-36310, Oct. 13, 1955. In 1956, the Department issued an opinion explicitly concluding that the 1924 proviso applied to leases under the 1938 Act, and the Department reaffirmed this position in 1966. See Opinion of the Department of Interior, M-36345, May 4, 1956; Letter from Harry R. Anderson, Asst. Secretary of the Interior, Oct. 27, 1966, reprinted at App. to Pet. for Cert. 301. Not until 1977 did the Department change its view of the effect of the 1938 Act on the taxation authority contained in the proviso. This history admittedly does not conclusively establish what the Department’s position was at the time of the passage of the 1938 Act and in the years immediately following. Still, it is significant that it was not until years after the passage of the 1938 Act that the Department first suggested that the 1924 proviso’s explicit authorization of taxation did not extend to leases under the 1938 Act. Had Congress really intended to cut off the State’s authority to tax mineral production on all leases entered into after 1938, it would seem odd that no one in the Interior Department was aware of this intention.
Because the proviso to the 1924 Act explicitly authorizes state taxation of mineral production on “such lands” as are concerned in this case, and because nothing in the language of the 1938 Act, its legislative history, its underlying policies, or its administrative construction suggests that the express language of the proviso should not govern this case, I would hold that the state taxes at issue here are authorized by federal law.
I therefore dissent.

 The majority frames the question as whether the 1938 Act “incorporate[s]” the proviso to the 1924 Act. See ante, at 767. To me, the discussion of “incorporation” seems beside the point. The 1924 proviso remains on the books, and it covers leases of a certain description. The question is whether leases under the 1938 Act fit that description. If they do, a specific congressional intent to “incorporate” the proviso into the 1938 Act is unnecessary.