Bryan v. Itasca County
| Bryan v. Itasca County | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued April 20, 1976 Decided June 14, 1976 |
|
| Full case name | Russell Bryan v. Itasca County, Minnesota |
| Citations | 426 U.S. 373 (more)
96 S. Ct. 2102; 48 L. Ed. 2d 710; 1976 U.S. LEXIS 61
|
| Prior history | Russell Bryan v. Itasca County, 228 N.W.2d 249 (Minn. 1975). |
| Holding | |
| Minnesota did not have the right to assess a tax on the property of an Indian living on tribal land absent a specific Congressional grant of authority to do so | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Brennan, joined by unanimous |
| Laws applied | |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1360 | |
Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state did not have the right to assess a tax on the property of a Native American (Indian) living on tribal land absent a specific Congressional grant of authority to do so.
The case arose when a Minnesota county taxed an Indian's mobile home located on the reservation. The Court ruled that the state did not have the authority to impose such a tax or, more generally, to regulate behavior on the reservation. Bryan has become a landmark case that has led to Indian gaming on reservations and altered the economic status of almost every Indian tribe. Later decisions, citing Bryan, ruled that Public Law 280 allows states to enact prohibitions, or crimes, that would apply on reservations, but could not impose regulations on conduct that was otherwise allowed. The case has also called into question the ability of the states to impose any sort of regulations on tribal reservations, such as labor standards and certain traffic regulations.
Generally, no state has the authority to tax an Indian tribe or an individual Indian living on a reservation without authorization from Congress. This is based primarily on the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which states, "Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." This doctrine is based on Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832) which stated that Indian tribes are considered to be dependent sovereign nations which deal directly with the federal government, and that states have no authority to regulate or control the tribes. Congress can authorize the states to have some control over the tribes. Minnesota is a Public Law 280 state, one where Congress has granted the state total criminal and limited civil jurisdiction on tribal land and reservations.
...
Wikipedia