White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker
Encyclopedia
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136
(1980), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States
holding that Arizona's
taxes that were assessed against a non-Indian contractor that was working exclusively for an Indian tribe on that tribe's reservation were preempted by federal law.
. The lumber itself is harvested from land held in trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) for the benefit of the tribe. The BIA has a contract with FATCO to harvest the trees, but the BIA controlled which trees would be taken, the equipment to be used, where and what roads would be used and logging truck speeds. Pinetop vehicles do not leave the reservation, and only used roads built and maintained by BIA. In 1971, the Arizona
Highway Department (now the Arizona Department of Transportation
) sought to collect a motor carrier tax and a fuel tax
from Pinetop. Pinetop paid under protest, and both Pinetop and the tribe sued to recover the taxes.
, Arizona, granted a summary judgment
to the state and both the tribe and Pinetop appealed. At the Arizona Court of Appeals
, Pinetop argued that McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n
, prohibited the taxes that Arizona sought. The state argued that Pinetop was not part of the tribe and were not owned by Indians, and therefore the tax applied. The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court. Both the tribe and Pinetop appealed, but the Arizona Supreme Court
declined to review the decision. The United States Supreme Court then granted certiorari
to hear the case.
delivered the opinion of the court. Marshall held that when a state seeks to assert authority over activities on a reservation by a non-Indian, that the court must look at the nature of the state, federal and tribal interests that are at stake. Here, the federal government, through the BIA, extensively regulated and controlled the timber operation and are so pervasive as to preclude any state taxation of the non-Indian contractor. The decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals was reversed.
, joined by Justices Potter Stewart
and William Rehnquist
, dissented. Stevens believed that the state could tax Pinetop, and that it was not relevant as to whether those taxes were passed on to the tribe. He would have affirmed the decision.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1980), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
holding that Arizona's
Arizona
Arizona ; is a state located in the southwestern region of the United States. It is also part of the western United States and the mountain west. The capital and largest city is Phoenix...
taxes that were assessed against a non-Indian contractor that was working exclusively for an Indian tribe on that tribe's reservation were preempted by federal law.
Background
History
The Fort Apache Timber Company (FATCO) is a tribal enterprise created by the White Mountain Apache tribe contracted with the Pinetop Logging Company (Pinetop) in 1969 to transport and sell lumber harvested by FATCO on the Fort Apache Indian ReservationFort Apache Indian Reservation
The Fort Apache Indian Reservation is an Indian reservation in Arizona, United States, encompassing parts of Navajo, Gila, and Apache counties. It is home to the federally recognized White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, a Western Apache tribe. It has a land area of 2,627.608...
. The lumber itself is harvested from land held in trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bureau of Indian Affairs
The Bureau of Indian Affairs is an agency of the federal government of the United States within the US Department of the Interior. It is responsible for the administration and management of of land held in trust by the United States for Native Americans in the United States, Native American...
(BIA) for the benefit of the tribe. The BIA has a contract with FATCO to harvest the trees, but the BIA controlled which trees would be taken, the equipment to be used, where and what roads would be used and logging truck speeds. Pinetop vehicles do not leave the reservation, and only used roads built and maintained by BIA. In 1971, the Arizona
Arizona
Arizona ; is a state located in the southwestern region of the United States. It is also part of the western United States and the mountain west. The capital and largest city is Phoenix...
Highway Department (now the Arizona Department of Transportation
Arizona Department of Transportation
The Arizona Department of Transportation is an Arizona state government agency charged with facilitating mobility within the state. In addition to managing the state's highway system, the agency is also involved with public transportation and municipal airports...
) sought to collect a motor carrier tax and a fuel tax
Fuel tax
A fuel tax is an excise tax imposed on the sale of fuel. In most countries the fuel tax is imposed on fuels which are intended for transportation...
from Pinetop. Pinetop paid under protest, and both Pinetop and the tribe sued to recover the taxes.
Lower courts
The Superior Court of Maricopa CountyMaricopa County, Arizona
-2010:Whereas according to the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau:*73.0% White*5.0% Black*2.1% Native American*3.5% Asian*0.2% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander*3.5% Two or more races*12.7% Other races*29.6% Hispanic or Latino -2000:...
, Arizona, granted a summary judgment
Summary judgment
In law, a summary judgment is a determination made by a court without a full trial. Such a judgment may be issued as to the merits of an entire case, or of specific issues in that case....
to the state and both the tribe and Pinetop appealed. At the Arizona Court of Appeals
Arizona Court of Appeals
The Arizona Court of Appeals is the intermediate appellate court for the State of Arizona. It is divided into two divisions, with a total of twenty-two judges on the court: sixteen in Division One, based in Phoenix, and six in Division Two, based in Tucson....
, Pinetop argued that McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n
McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n
McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 411 U.S. 164 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States holding that Arizona has no jurisdiction to impose a tax on the income of Navajo Indians residing on the Navajo Reservation and whose income is wholly derived from reservation...
, prohibited the taxes that Arizona sought. The state argued that Pinetop was not part of the tribe and were not owned by Indians, and therefore the tax applied. The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court. Both the tribe and Pinetop appealed, but the Arizona Supreme Court
Arizona Supreme Court
The Arizona Supreme Court is the state supreme court of the U.S. state of Arizona. It consists of a Chief Justice, a Vice Chief Justice, and three associate justices. Each justice is appointed by the governor of Arizona from a list recommended by a bipartisan commission. Justices stand for...
declined to review the decision. The United States Supreme Court then granted certiorari
Certiorari
Certiorari is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in U.S., Roman, English, Philippine, and other law. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin certiorare...
to hear the case.
Opinion of the Court
Justice Thurgood MarshallThurgood Marshall
Thurgood Marshall was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, serving from October 1967 until October 1991...
delivered the opinion of the court. Marshall held that when a state seeks to assert authority over activities on a reservation by a non-Indian, that the court must look at the nature of the state, federal and tribal interests that are at stake. Here, the federal government, through the BIA, extensively regulated and controlled the timber operation and are so pervasive as to preclude any state taxation of the non-Indian contractor. The decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals was reversed.
Concurrence
Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., concurred with the majority. The fact that the roads that Pinetop used were BIA or tribal roads would mean that the state was taxing for revenue that would not be needed to maintain the roads being used, and that this amounted to double taxation.Dissent
Justice John Paul StevensJohn Paul Stevens
John Paul Stevens served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from December 19, 1975 until his retirement on June 29, 2010. At the time of his retirement, he was the oldest member of the Court and the third-longest serving justice in the Court's history...
, joined by Justices Potter Stewart
Potter Stewart
Potter Stewart was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. During his tenure, he made, among other areas, major contributions to criminal justice reform, civil rights, access to the courts, and Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.-Education:Stewart was born in Jackson, Michigan,...
and William Rehnquist
William Rehnquist
William Hubbs Rehnquist was an American lawyer, jurist, and political figure who served as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States and later as the 16th Chief Justice of the United States...
, dissented. Stevens believed that the state could tax Pinetop, and that it was not relevant as to whether those taxes were passed on to the tribe. He would have affirmed the decision.