Montana v. United States

Definition

Montana v. United States is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1981 that addressed the extent of tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction over non-Indians on tribal land. This case established important precedents regarding the authority of tribes to regulate activities on their lands and clarified the relationship between state and tribal powers.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The case arose after a dispute over whether the Crow Tribe could impose regulations on non-Indians conducting business on tribal lands.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that tribes have limited authority over non-Indians, especially regarding activities that do not directly involve the tribe's internal affairs.
3. Montana v. United States created a two-part test for determining when a tribe can assert jurisdiction over non-Indians on their land.
4. The decision has had a lasting impact on how tribal sovereignty is understood in relation to non-Indian entities operating within tribal lands.
5. This case highlighted the ongoing challenges tribes face in asserting their rights and jurisdiction amid federal and state powers.

Review Questions

• What key principles were established by the Supreme Court in Montana v. United States regarding tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction?
  • Montana v. United States established that tribes have limited authority over non-Indians on their lands, especially if their actions do not directly involve the tribe or affect its governance. The Supreme Court introduced a two-part test to assess when a tribe can exercise jurisdiction over non-Indians, focusing on whether the non-Indian's activities have a substantial connection to the tribe's interests.
• How did Montana v. United States influence the understanding of plenary power in relation to tribal governments?
  • Montana v. United States reinforced the concept of plenary power by highlighting Congress's authority over tribal affairs while simultaneously outlining the limitations of tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians. This case underscored the delicate balance between federal power and tribal sovereignty, demonstrating how federal law can constrain tribal authority despite inherent sovereignty.
• Evaluate the implications of Montana v. United States for contemporary jurisdictional disputes involving Native American tribes and state governments.
  • Montana v. United States has significant implications for ongoing jurisdictional disputes as it shapes how courts interpret tribal sovereignty in relation to state and federal authorities. The ruling serves as a precedent that can either empower or limit tribes when dealing with non-Indians and external businesses on their lands. As tribes seek to assert their rights in various contemporary issues—such as resource management, taxation, and regulatory authority—this case remains central to understanding the complexities of legal relationships between tribal governments, states, and the federal government.

Related terms

Tribal Sovereignty: The inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within their territories, separate from state and federal laws.

Plenary Power:

The complete and absolute power held by Congress over Native American affairs, allowing it to regulate tribes and their relations with non-Indians.

Trust Responsibility:

The legal obligation of the federal government to protect the interests and sovereignty of Native American tribes, including their land and resources.