Bryan v. Itasca Cty. - 426 U.S. 373, 96 S. Ct. 2102 (1976)

Rule:

State taxation of Indian reservation lands and Indian income from activities carried on within the boundaries of the reservation is not permissible absent congressional consent. 

Facts:

Petitioner, an enrolled Chippewa Indian, brought this suit in state court seeking a declaratory judgment that the State of Minnesota and respondent county lacked authority to impose a personal property tax on his mobile home located on land held in trust for members of his tribe and that imposition of such a tax contravened federal law. The trial court rejected the contention. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the grant of civil jurisdiction to the State in § 4(a) of Pub. L. 280 includes taxing authority and since § 4(b) does not exempt nontrust property from such authority, the county had power to assess the tax. Section 4(a) gave various States, including Minnesota, with respect to all Indian country within the State except as specifically exempted "jurisdiction over civil causes of action between Indians or to which Indians are parties which arise in the areas of Indian country listed… to the same extent that such State… has jurisdiction over other civil causes of action, and those civil laws of such State… that are of general application to private persons or private property shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country as they have elsewhere within the State…." Though tax laws are not specifically mentioned, the State Supreme Court concluded that they were included since the exempting provision, § 4(b), does not exempt nontrust property, but states that "nothing in this section shall authorize the… taxation of any real or personal property… belonging to any Indian or any Indian tribe… that is held in trust by the United States…."

Issue:

Did Public Law 280 grant States the authority to impose taxes on reservation Indians?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court held that previous case law precluded any county authority to levy a personal property tax on the tribe member's mobile home in the absence of congressional consent. The Court concluded that 28 U.S.C.S. § 1360(a) did not constitute such consent. The Court added that the state court erred in determining that 28 U.S.C.S. § 1360 was a clear grant of the power to tax. The Court noted the total absence in the legislative history of mention of a congressional intent to confer upon the states an authority to tax Indians or Indian property. The Court held that the primary intent of the statute was, rather, to grant jurisdiction over private civil litigation involving reservation Indians in state court. The statute was to be liberally construed, with doubtful expressions being resolved in favor of the Indians.