montana rule

What happened

The Crow Tribe of Montana sued to settle who could regulate hunting and fishing along the Big Horn River within the Crow Reservation. In Montana v. United States (1981), the Supreme Court first held that title to the riverbed passed to Montana upon statehood. It then held that although the Tribe "may prohibit or regulate hunting or fishing by nonmembers on land belonging to the Tribe or held by the United States in trust for the Tribe, it has no power to regulate non-Indian fishing and hunting on reservation land owned in fee by nonmembers of the Tribe."

The Court generalized: "the inherent sovereign powers of an Indian tribe do not extend to the activities of nonmembers of the tribe." It then named two exceptions. A tribe may regulate "the activities of nonmembers who enter consensual relationships with the tribe or its members, through commercial dealing, contracts, leases, or other arrangements." And it may retain power over non-Indian conduct on fee lands within its reservation "when that conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe."

Later cases applied it. Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land and Cattle Co. (2008) described the "general rule that tribes do not possess authority over non-Indians who come within their borders," stronger "when the nonmember's activity occurs on land owned in fee simple by non-Indians." It held that the tribal court lacked jurisdiction over a discrimination claim about a non-Indian bank's sale of its fee land.

Good to know. The rule is a presumption about civil authority; criminal jurisdiction follows other cases.

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