Chickasaw Nation v. United States facts for kids
Chickasaw Nation v. United States was an important case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2001. The Court had to decide if Native American tribes had to pay certain taxes on their gambling businesses. The case involved the Chickasaw Nation and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. The Supreme Court decided that tribes did have to pay these taxes, even though they argued they should be exempt.
Quick facts for kids Chickasaw Nation v. United States |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued October 2, 2001 Decided November 27, 2001 |
|
| Full case name | Chickasaw Nation v. United States; and Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma v. United States |
| Docket nos. | 00-507 |
| Citations | 534 U.S. 84 (more)
122 S. Ct. 528; 151 L. Ed. 2d 474
|
| Prior history | Chickasaw Nation v. United States, 208 F.3d 871 (10th Cir. 2000) (first judgment); Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma v. United States, 210 F.3d 389 (10th Cir. 2000) (second judgment); cert. granted, 531 U.S. 1124 (2001). |
| Holding | |
| Indian tribes were liable for taxes on gambling operations under 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2721. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Breyer, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg; Scalia, Thomas (all but Part II-B) |
| Dissent | O'Connor, joined by Souter |
| Laws applied | |
| Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2721 | |
Contents
Why the Case Happened
The Chickasaw Nation ran several businesses to earn money for their tribe. One way they did this was by selling "pull-tabs." These are like scratch-off lottery tickets.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which collects taxes in the U.S., told the tribe they owed taxes on the money made from these pull-tabs. These were called excise taxes (taxes on certain goods or services) and federal occupational taxes (taxes on certain jobs or businesses).
The Chickasaw Nation paid the taxes. However, they then asked for their money back. They believed they should not have to pay these taxes. They thought a law called the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) meant they were exempt.
When the U.S. government said no to their request, the tribe sued them. The case first went to a special court called the Federal District Court. This court decided that the tribe did have to pay the taxes.
The tribe then appealed this decision. The case went to a higher court, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. This court also agreed with the first court's decision.
Finally, the Chickasaw Nation asked the Supreme Court to hear their case. The Supreme Court agreed to review it.
The Choctaw Nation's Similar Case
At the same time, the Choctaw Nation was also using the same pull-tab system. They also faced the same tax issue and went through the same courts. Their cases had the same results as the Chickasaw Nation's. Because the cases were so similar, the Supreme Court decided to hear both appeals together.
The Supreme Court's Decision
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the main opinion for the Supreme Court. The Court decided to uphold the decisions of the lower courts. This meant the tribes still had to pay the taxes.
The tribes argued that the IGRA law said tax rules should apply to tribes in the same way they apply to states. States do not have to pay these kinds of taxes. So, the tribes believed they should not have to pay them either.
However, the Court disagreed. Even though there was information from the people who wrote the IGRA law saying that "tax treatment of wagers conducted by tribal governments be the same as that for wagers conducted by state governments," the Court still decided that the tribes were responsible for the taxes.
Justice O'Connor's Disagreement
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor disagreed with the majority decision. Justice David Souter joined her in this disagreement.
Justice O'Connor explained that when courts interpret laws about Native American tribes, they usually have a special rule. This rule says that laws should be understood in a way that helps Native Americans. If a part of a law is unclear, it should be interpreted to benefit them.
She argued that the Court did not follow this rule in this case. She believed that if the law was unclear, it should have been interpreted to exempt the tribes from the taxes.
