Montana v. United States facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Montana v. United States |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued December 3, 1980 Decided March 24, 1981 |
|
| Full case name | Montana, et al. v. United States, et al. |
| Citations | 450 U.S. 544 (more)
101 S. Ct. 1245; 67 L. Ed. 2d 493; 1981 U.S. LEXIS 9; 49 U.S.L.W. 4296
|
| Prior history | 457 F. Supp. 599 (D. Mont. 1978); reversed, 604 F.2d 1162 (9th Cir. 1979); cert. granted, 445 U.S. 960 (1980). |
| Holding | |
| Indian tribes generally do not possess the power to regulate the activities of non-Indians even if those activities occur on Indian lands | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stewart, joined by Burger, White, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens |
| Concurrence | Stevens |
| Dissent | Blackmun, joined by Brennan, Marshall |
| Laws applied | |
| Crow treaties, 18 U.S.C. § 1165 | |
Montana v. United States was an important case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1981. This case looked at two main questions. First, who owned the land under the Big Horn River? Was it the United States, holding it for the Crow Nation, or did it belong to the State of Montana?
Second, could the Crow Nation make rules about hunting and fishing for people who were not tribal members? This applied even if those non-members owned land within the Crow Reservation. The Court's decision helped define how much power Native American tribes have over non-members on their lands.
Contents
Understanding the Case: Montana v. United States
The case of Montana v. United States (1981) involved a disagreement between the State of Montana and the Crow Nation. The Supreme Court had to decide who had rights to certain lands and who could make rules there. This decision was very important for Native American tribes across the country.
Riverbed Ownership: Who Owns the River?
One big question was about the Big Horn Riverbed. When Montana became a state, it joined the United States on an equal basis with other states. This idea is called the Equal Footing Doctrine.
The Supreme Court decided that because of this doctrine, Montana owned the land under the river. The Court said that when a state joins the U.S., it usually gains ownership of the land under its navigable rivers.
Tribal Power: Regulating Non-Members
The second main question was about the Crow Nation's power. Could the tribe make rules for people who were not tribal members? This specifically applied to hunting and fishing on land owned by non-members, even if that land was inside the reservation.
The Court decided that the Crow Nation generally could not make these rules. This meant that tribes usually do not have the power to control what non-members do on land they own within a reservation.
Exceptions to Tribal Authority
However, the Supreme Court did list two situations where a tribe could make rules for non-members:
- Consensual Relationships: If a non-member freely enters into a special agreement or relationship with the tribe or its members. This could be a business deal or a contract.
- Threats to the Tribe: If the non-member's actions directly threaten the tribe's safety, economic well-being, or ability to govern itself.
These exceptions mean that tribes can still protect themselves and their people.
Impact of the Decision
The Montana v. United States case set a major precedent. A precedent is a past decision that guides future legal cases. This ruling made it harder for tribes to control the actions of non-members on their lands.
After this decision, many lawsuits were filed. These cases challenged the power of tribal courts and governments over people who were not tribal members. The Montana decision continues to be a key part of Native American law today.
