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, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), was a Supreme Court case that addressed two issues: (1) Whether the title of the Big Horn Riverbed rested with the United States, in trust for the Crow Nation or passed to the State of Montana upon becoming a state and (2) Whether Crow Nation retained the power to regulate hunting and fishing on tribal lands owned in fee-simple by a non-tribal member. First, the Court held that Montana held title to the Big Horn Riverbed because the Equal Footing Doctrine required the United States to pass title to the newly incorporated State. Second, the Court held that Crow Nation lacked the power to regulate nonmember hunting and fishing on fee-simple land owned by nonmembers, but within the bounds of its reservation. More broadly, the Court held that Tribes could not exercise regulatory authority over nonmembers on fee-simple land within the reservation unless (1) the nonmember entered a "consensual relationship" with the Tribe or its members or (2) the nonmember's "conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe."
The Supreme Court in Montana v. United States set a precedent which resulted in a wave of litigation challenging not only the exercise of tribal court authority over non-members, but the very existence of that authority.
