Montana v. United States

What happened

The Crow Tribe claimed authority to prohibit hunting and fishing by anyone who was not a tribal member within its reservation, even on land owned in fee by non-Indians. It relied on its claimed ownership of the bed of the Big Horn River, on the treaties that created its reservation, and on its inherent power as a sovereign.

The 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie established the Crow Reservation, including land through which the Big Horn River flows. In Article II the United States agreed that the reservation "shall be . . . set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation" of the Tribe, and that no non-Indians except government agents "shall ever be permitted to pass over, settle upon, or reside in" it. Later acts of Congress reduced the reservation, and some land passed into non-Indian hands.

To resolve the conflict between the Tribe and Montana, the United States, in its own right and as fiduciary for the Tribe, filed suit to quiet title to the riverbed in the United States as trustee for the Tribe. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Stewart, held that title to the riverbed passed to Montana when it joined the Union, because the 1851 and 1868 treaties did not overcome the strong presumption against conveying lands under navigable waters. It also held that the Tribe may regulate hunting and fishing by non-members on tribal or trust land, but has no power over non-Indian hunting and fishing on land owned in fee by non-members.

In 2001 the Court called Montana the "path-marking case" on tribal regulatory authority over nonmembers.

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