White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker
 |
| White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker | |
|---|---|
 823 (1979). | |
| Holding | |
| Arizona's taxes that were assessed against a non-Indian contractor that was working exclusively for an Indian tribe on that tribe's reservation were preempted by federal law | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Marshall, joined by Burger, Brennan, White, Blackmun, Powell |
| Concurrence | Powell |
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Stewart, Rehnquist |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. art. 1, §8, cl. 3; 4 U.S.C. § 104; 4 U.S.C. § 105, et seq. | |
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States holding that Arizona's taxes that were assessed against a non-Indian contractor that was working exclusively for an Indian tribe on that tribe's reservation were preempted by federal law.[1]
Background
History
The Fort Apache Timber Company (FATCO) is a tribal enterprise created by the White Mountain Apache tribe contracted with the Pinetop Logging Company (Pinetop) in 1969 to transport and sell lumber harvested by FATCO on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation. The lumber itself is harvested from land held in trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for the benefit of the tribe. The BIA has a contract with FATCO to harvest the trees, but the BIA controlled which trees would be taken, the equipment to be used, where and what roads would be used and logging truck speeds. Pinetop vehicles do not leave the reservation, and only used roads built and maintained by BIA. In 1971, the Arizona Highway Department (now the Arizona Department of Transportation) sought to collect a motor carrier tax and a fuel tax from Pinetop. Pinetop paid under protest, and both Pinetop and the tribe sued to recover the taxes.[2][1]
Lower courts
The
Opinion of the Court
Justice Thurgood Marshall delivered the opinion of the court. Marshall held that when a state seeks to assert authority over activities on a reservation by a non-Indian, that the court must look at the nature of the state, federal and tribal interests that are at stake. Here, the federal government, through the BIA, extensively regulated and controlled the timber operation and are so pervasive as to preclude any state taxation of the non-Indian contractor. The decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals was reversed.[1]
Concurrence
Justice
Dissent
Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices Potter Stewart and William Rehnquist, dissented. Stevens believed that the state could tax Pinetop, and that it was not relevant as to whether those taxes were passed on to the tribe. He would have affirmed the decision.[1]
References
External links
- Text of White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
- William T. McClure and Thomas E. McClure, Rebalancing Bracker Forty Years Later, 9 Am. Indian L.J. 333 (2021) contains recent legal scholarship regarding White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, resulting implied preemption balancing test, and its use by lower courts for the last four decades.