Citation network
Washington Vs. Confederated Tribes
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 10, 1980
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Washington v. ConfederatedSearch
-
Tribes - 447 U.S. 134 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Washington v. ConfederatedSearch
-
Tribes, 447 U.S. 134 (1980) Washington v. ConfederatedSearch
-
and are not rendered inescapably frivolous by the decisions in Mescalero Apache Tribe v. JonesSearch
-
U. S. 145 , and McClanahan v. ArizonaSearch
-
Page 447 U. S. 137 packages of cigarettes prior to the time of sale to nonmembers of the Tribe. Cf. Moe v. SalishSearch
-
State's assumption of civil and criminal jurisdiction over the Makah and Lummi Reservations was unlawful. Washington v. YakimaSearch
-
once addressed the intricate problem of state taxation of matters involving Indian tribes and their members. Moe v. SalishSearch
-
McClanahan v. ArizonaSearch
-
issues. 446 F.Supp. 1339 (ED Wash.1978). The first case, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation v. StateSearch
-
and Lummi Tribes. The second, United States of America and Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation v. StateSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
court where a constitutional challenge to a state statute is grounded only in the Supremacy Clause. Swift & Co. v. WickhamSearch
-
U. S. 147 Clause as well as the Supremacy Clause. Relying primarily upon language in footnote 17 in Moe v. SalishSearch
-
that the insubstantiality of Commerce Clause claims such as those before us flows from Mescalero Apache Tribe v. JonesSearch
-
U. S. 145 (1973), and McClanahan v. ArizonaSearch
-
We think the United States reads too much into this language. Goosby v. OsserSearch
-
state statutes will not necessarily convert a suit to restrain their lawless behavior into a 2281 case, Phillips v. UnitedSearch
-
of jurisdiction holdings is properly before us, and we turn to the merits. IV A In Moe v. SalishSearch
-
retain unless divested of it by federal law or necessary implication of their dependent status. Cf. United States v. WheelerSearch
-
have acknowledged tribal power to tax non-Indians entering the reservation to engage in economic activity. Buster v. WrightSearch
-
Iron Crow v. OglalaSearch
-
Morris v. HitchcockSearch
-
In these respects, the present cases differ sharply from Oliphant v. SuquamishSearch
-
outside is not generated on the reservations by activities in which the tribes have a significant interest. Cf. Moe v. SalishSearch
-
to regulate businesses selling goods to reservation Indians for cash or exchange, see Warren Trading Post Co. v. ArizonaSearch
-
could perhaps preempt state taxation through the exercise of properly delegated federal power to do so, cf. Fisher v. DistrictSearch
-
Williams v. LeeSearch
-
of the Tribes and the Federal Government. on the one hand, and those of the State, on the other. McClanahan v. ArizonaSearch
-
all state taxation of matters significantly touching the political and economic interests of the Tribes. See Moe v. SalishSearch
-
to nonmembers of the Tribe. Relying in part on the lower court opinion in Moe, Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes v. MoeSearch
-
for federal court jurisdiction over crimes committed by Indians on another Tribe's reservation. Cf. United States v. AntelopeSearch
-
Indian affairs is considerably more expansive than it is within reservation boundaries. Cf. Mescalero Apache Tribe v. JonesSearch
-
Brief for Appellants in No. 7630, p. 110. We therefore express no opinion on the matter. v. TheSearch
-
and that event took place on the reservation. Accordingly, under McClanahan v. ArizonaSearch
-
told, the McClanahan principle is inapplicable, and the tax should be upheld under Mescalero Apache Tribe v. JonesSearch
-
apparently recognize that this issue is controlled by the intervening decision in the State's favor in Washington v. YakimaSearch
-
Together with Washington v. UnitedSearch
-
also on appeal from the same court, and No. 760, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation et al. v. WashingtonSearch
-
Proceedings in both cases were stayed for several months, however, pending this Court's decisions in Moe v. SalishSearch
-
Kootenai Tribes, 425 U. S. 463 (1976), and Bryan v. ItascaSearch
-
Stat. 58, granted it general authority to tax reservation Indians. After this theory was rejected in Bryan v. ItascaSearch
-
the products. But where the wholesaler or retailer is an Indian on whom the tax cannot be imposed under McClanahan v. ArizonaSearch
-
but after Bryan v. ItascaSearch
-
County, 426 U. S. 373 (1976), and Moe v. SalishSearch
-
either under the Commerce Clause or the intergovernmental immunity doctrine as laid down originally in M'Culloch v. MarylandSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Washington v. ConfederatedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial