Living Law,
Living LandSupport land rights

Court case

White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker

In 1980 the Court held that federal law pre-empted Arizona taxes on a non-Indian company hauling tribal timber on a reservation.

Citation
448 U.S. 136 (1980)
Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Year
1980
Nations
White Mountain Apache Tribe
Treaty at issue
none
Effect on land rights
advanced

What happened

Pinetop Logging Company, a non-Indian business authorized to do business in Arizona, had a contract with an organization of the White Mountain Apache Tribe. It felled tribal timber on the Fort Apache Reservation and transported it to the tribal organization's sawmill. All of its work was done on the reservation, and the hauling was on roads of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Tribe.

Arizona agencies sought to impose a motor carrier license tax, based on gross receipts, and a use fuel tax on diesel burned on highways. Pinetop paid under protest and sued in state court, arguing that federal law barred the taxes. The trial court and the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled for the State.

On June 27, 1980, the Supreme Court reversed. Justice Marshall wrote that "the tradition of Indian sovereignty over the reservation and tribal members must inform the determination whether the exercise of state authority has been pre-empted by operation of federal law." When a State asserts authority over non-Indians on a reservation, the Court said, it must make a particularized inquiry into the state, federal and tribal interests at stake.

The Court found federal regulation of the harvesting, sale and management of tribal timber, and of the roads, so pervasive that it left no room for the taxes. It said they would undermine the federal policy that timber profits benefit the Tribe. Justice Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Stewart and Rehnquist.

Summarized with AI assistance from 3 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error

What the sources say, and how this was checked

Well supported by the sources below.

  1. The tradition of Indian sovereignty over the reservation and tribal members must inform the determination whether the exercise of state authority has been pre-emptedWhite Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  2. a particularized inquiry must be made into the nature of the state, federal, and tribal interests at stakeWhite Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  3. is so pervasive as to preclude the additional burdens sought to be imposed hereWhite Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)

Research notes. Only the syllabus and first page were read in full. The atlas page lists "none" for a treaty, which matches the syllabus. The old claim about Mescalero (1983) and later cases was removed as unsourced.

Who is doing the work

This history belongs to living nations. Start with them:

Native legal and land defense, nationally

Gifts go straight to each organization; this atlas takes nothing. Listing is not endorsement: how organizations are listed.

Connections

Links marked “suggested” were matched automatically by name or date and have not yet been reviewed by a person.

Doctrine applied 3

Policy era 1

Nations named 1

Sources

  1. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/448/136/legal text copy
The record’s fields
Holding
State motor-carrier and fuel taxes on a non-Indian logging contractor operating solely on the reservation were preempted by pervasive federal regulation of tribal timber; case-specific interest-balancing for preemption.
Kind
Court case
Confidence
High

Correct this record