Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe

What happened

Congress first authorized mineral leasing of Indian lands in the Act of February 28, 1891, which allowed leases of up to 10 years on lands "bought and paid for" by the Indians. A 1924 amendment said 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."

The Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938, enacted to get uniform leasing rules, also permitted mineral leasing of Indian lands. It had no provision authorizing state taxation, and it did not specifically repeal the 1924 authorization. It did include a general repealer clause: "All Act[s] or parts of Acts inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed." The Blackfeet Tribe of Indians challenged several Montana taxes on its royalty interests under oil and gas leases issued to non-Indian lessees under the 1938 Act. The district court sided with the State. The Court of Appeals reversed in pertinent part, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

Justice Powell wrote that two canons apply: states may tax Indians only when Congress has manifested clearly its consent to such taxation, and statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of Indians. The 1938 Act showed no such consent, and the words "such lands" in the 1924 taxing provision referred to lands leased under the 1891 Act.

Four years later, in Cotton Petroleum v. New Mexico (1989), the Court held that a state may impose its own severance taxes on non-Indian lessees' on-reservation oil and gas production, as a different question.

Good to know. Cotton Petroleum concerned a state tax on a non-Indian company's production, a different question from Montana's tax on the Tribe's royalties.

Summarized with AI assistance from 4 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error