Washington State Dept. of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc. facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Washington v. Cougar Den |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued October 30, 2018 Decided March 19, 2019 |
|
| Full case name | Washington State Dept. of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc. |
| Docket nos. | 16-1498 |
| Citations | 586 U.S. ___ (more)
139 S. Ct. 1000; 203 L. Ed. 2d 301
|
| Prior history | Cougar Den, Inc. v. Dep't of Licensing, 392 P.3d 1014 (2017); cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 2671 (2018). |
| Holding | |
| The Yakama Nation Treaty of 1855 preempts the state law which the State purported to be able to tax fuel purchased by a tribal corporation for sale to tribal members. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Plurality | Breyer, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Concurrence | Gorsuch (in judgment), joined by Ginsburg |
| Dissent | Roberts, joined by Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh |
| Dissent | Kavanaugh, joined by Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| Yakama Nation Treaty of 1855; Wash. Rev. Code §§82.36.010(4), (12), (16) | |
Washington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc. was an important case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019. The Court ruled that a state law taxing fuel could not apply to the Yakama Nation tribe because of an old treaty from 1855. This treaty gave the Yakama Nation special rights.
The decision meant that the state of Washington could not tax fuel bought by a tribal company for sale to tribe members. This was a close decision, with five judges agreeing and four disagreeing.
What Was This Case About?
This case was about whether the state of Washington could tax fuel that a company owned by the Yakama Nation brought onto their reservation. The Yakama Nation said a treaty from 1855 protected their right to travel and trade without such taxes.
The Yakama Nation's Story
The Yakama Nation is a group of American Indian people. Their home is on the Yakama Indian Reservation in Washington State. This reservation is located on the east side of the Cascade Mountains.
A Treaty from 1855
In 1855, the Yakama Nation signed a special agreement called the Yakama Nation Treaty. In this treaty, they gave up a huge amount of land, about 10 million acres, to the United States. But they also kept important rights for themselves and their people. One key right they kept was "the right, in common with citizens of the United States, to travel upon all public highways."
The Fuel Tax Problem
Cougar Den, Inc., is a business owned by the Yakama Nation. This company brought gasoline onto the reservation to sell to other tribal members. The state of Washington had a law that put a tax on fuel brought into the state by truck. Cougar Den, Inc., refused to pay this tax.
In 2013, Washington State said the tribe owed $3.6 million in taxes and penalties. Cougar Den, Inc., disagreed and challenged this demand.
How the Case Reached the Supreme Court
The dispute over the fuel tax went through several courts. First, a special judge, called an administrative law judge, said the tax could not be applied because of the treaty. Washington State then asked for a review, and a state official reversed that decision, saying the tribe did owe the tax.
Cougar Den, Inc., then took the case to a local court in Yakima County. This court sided with the tribe, saying the treaty stopped the state tax. The state then appealed to the Washington Supreme Court. That court also agreed with the tribe, saying the treaty prevented the state from collecting the tax.
After all these decisions, the state of Washington asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. The Supreme Court agreed to review it.
What Happened at the Supreme Court?
At the Supreme Court, lawyers for both sides presented their arguments. They explained why they believed the tax should or should not apply to the Yakama Nation.
What Each Side Argued
Washington State's View
The lawyer for Washington State, Noah Purcell, argued that the tax was just on owning the fuel, not on traveling with it. He said the treaty only gave the tribe the right to use the roads, not to avoid taxes on goods they carried. The United States government also supported Washington State's view.
The Yakama Nation's View
The lawyer for the Yakama Nation, Adam Unikowsky, argued that the treaty allowed the tribe to move their goods to and from places where they could trade. He said the tax was actually a tax on traveling with goods, not just on owning the goods.
The Court's Main Decision
The main decision of the Supreme Court was written by Justice Stephen Breyer. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan agreed with him.
Justice Breyer explained that Washington's tax was not just on owning or bringing in fuel. It was specifically on moving fuel by truck on the roads. He pointed out that the state had changed its tax rules after another court had stopped them from taxing fuel on the reservation.
He also noted that when the Yakama Nation signed the treaty, they would have understood that their "right to travel on the public highways" included the right to travel with goods for trading. Since the tax made it harder for the tribe to travel with their goods, the state law was stopped by the treaty. This meant the lower court's decision was correct.
Other Judges' Opinions
Justice Gorsuch's Agreement
Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wrote a separate opinion agreeing with the main decision. He believed the Court should understand the treaty based on its original meaning. He said it was important to think about how the Yakama Nation understood the treaty when they signed it.
The treaty was first written in English, then translated into a simplified language called Chinook Jargon. Justice Gorsuch felt the tribe believed the treaty gave them "the right to travel on all public highways without being subject to any licensing and permitting fees related to the exercise of that right while engaged in the transportation of tribal goods.”
He ended his opinion by saying:
"Really, this case just tells an old and familiar story. The State of Washington includes millions of acres that the Yakamas ceded to the United States under significant pressure. In return, the government supplied a handful of modest promises. The State is now dissatisfied with the consequences of one of those promises. It is a new day, and now it wants more. But today and to its credit, the Court holds the parties to the terms of their deal. It is the least we can do."
The Judges Who Disagreed
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh disagreed with the Court's main decision. Chief Justice Roberts believed the state's tax was on owning the fuel, not on moving it. He felt the tax would only be stopped by the treaty if it acted like a toll or a roadblock.
Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Thomas, also wrote a separate opinion disagreeing. He stated that the treaty only allowed tribal members to use public highways in the same way as other citizens.
See also
