Citation network
Brendale Vs. Confederated Tribes
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 29, 1989
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
-
Brendale v. ConfederatedSearch
-
Tribes - 492 U.S. 408 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Brendale v. ConfederatedSearch
-
Tribes, 492 U.S. 408 (1989) Brendale v. ConfederatedSearch
-
Tribe's political integrity, economic security, and health and welfare, and therefore was impermissible under Montana v. UnitedSearch
-
congressional delegation of tribal power to the contrary. Montana, supra, at 450 U. S. 564 . Washington v. ConfederatedSearch
-
and United States v. WheelerSearch
-
complying with the zoning rules runs with the land without regard to how a particular estate is transferred. Montana v. UnitedSearch
-
a) Under all of the Court's decisions dealing with the inherent sovereignty of Indian tribes, including Montana v. UnitedSearch
-
Court held that the Yakima Nation had exclusive zoning authority over the Brendale property, Yakima Indian Nation v. WhitesideSearch
-
Whiteside I ), but concluded that the Tribe lacked authority over the Wilkinson property, Yakima Indian Nation v. WhitesideSearch
-
F.Supp. 750, 758 (ED Wash.1985) ( Whiteside II ). The District Court looked to this Court's opinion in Montana v. UnitedSearch
-
Brendale property but reversed as to the Wilkinson property. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation v. WhitesideSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of the Allotment Act on an Indian tribe's treaty rights to regulate activities of nonmembers on fee land in Montana v. UnitedSearch
-
Id. at 450 U. S. 561 . See also Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. WashingtonSearch
-
Ibid. JUSTICE STEVENS cites only Seymour v. SuperintendentSearch
-
of Washington State Penitentiary, 368 U. S. 351 (1962), and Mattz v. ArnettSearch
-
to exclude nonmembers of the tribe from its lands is not the only source of Indian regulatory authority. In Merrion v. JicarillaSearch
-
Oliphant v. SuquamishSearch
-
Ibid. For example, Indian tribes cannot freely alienate their lands to non-Indians, Oneida Indian Nation v. OneidaSearch
-
cannot enter directly into commercial or governmental relations with foreign nations, Worcester v. GeorgiaSearch
-
on an express congressional delegation of tribal power over nonmembers is inconsistent with language in Washington v. ConfederatedSearch
-
Together with No. 87-1697, Wilkinson v. ConfederatedSearch
-
Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, and No. 87-1711, County of Yakima et al. v. ConfederatedSearch
-
and the prospective purchasers were dismissed as parties by order of the District Court. See Yakima Indian Nation v. WhitesideSearch
-
Yakima Indian Nation v. WhitesideSearch
-
made such findings only concerning the Brendale property. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation v. WhitesideSearch
-
whether the Yakima Nation's retained sovereignty might also have been divested by treaty or statute. United States v. WheelerSearch
-
U. S. 313 , 435 U. S. 323 (1978). See, e.g., Rice v. RehnerSearch
-
The Yakima Nation's reliance on statements about retained tribal sovereignty in National Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. CrowSearch
-
Tribe, 471 U. S. 845 (1985), and Iowa Mutual Ins. Co. v. LaPlanteSearch
-
instance, a government regulation must be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. See, e.g., Williamson v. LeeSearch
-
Cf. Oneida Indian Nation v. CountySearch
-
Merrion v. JicarillaSearch
-
or more often unilaterally -- destructive. As Justice Sutherland observed for the Court in the landmark case of Euclid v. AmblerSearch
-
a defined geographical area obviously includes the lesser power to define the character of that area. In New Mexico v. MescaleroSearch
-
such authority, Indian tribes maintain the sovereign power of exclusion unless otherwise curtailed. See Worcester v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Op.Atty.Gen. 465, 465-467 (1821). As is the case with many tribes, see, e.g., Montana v. UnitedSearch
-
Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. WashingtonSearch
-
U. S. 481 , 412 U. S. 496 (1973). See also Moe v. ConfederatedSearch
-
Act did not itself transfer any regulatory power from the Tribe to any state or local governmental authority. See Moe v. ConfederatedSearch
-
alienation of reservation land, the Act in some respects diminished tribal authority. As we recognized in Montana v. UnitedSearch
-
consisting of almost two-thirds of the entire reservation, only 25,000 acres are owned in fee. Yakima Indian Nation v. WhitesideSearch
-
operations are subject to regulation by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Ibid. Cf. White Mountain Apache Tribe v. BrackerSearch
-
however, the county does not maintain any roads in this portion of the reservation. Cf. Yakima Indian Nation v. WhitesideSearch
-
Brendale eventually succeeded in establishing a right of access to his own property over BIA roads. See Brendale v. OlneySearch
-
explicit in the Dawes Act, yet both appear necessary to a reasonable operation of the allotment process. Cf. Seymour v. SuperintendentSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Brendale v. ConfederatedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial