|
''Montana v. United States'', , was a Supreme Court case that addressed the Crow Nation's ability to regulate hunting and fishing on tribal lands by a non-tribal member. The case considered several important issues concerning tribes' treaty rights and sovereign governing authority on Indian reservations. The original dispute was over access to fishing on the Bighorn River within the exterior boundaries of the Crow Indian Reservation in Montana. The Court would eventually rule that the “exercise of tribal power beyond what is necessary to protect tribal self-government or to control internal relations is inconsistent with the dependent status of the tribes, and so cannot survive without express congressional delegation.”〔Duthu, Bruce. ''American Indians and the Law''. London: Penguin Books, 2008. Page 37.〕 A prior case, ''Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe'', played a significant role in the decision. The lower courts in that case had found that "preserving law and order within tribal lands was an indispensable attribute that had been neither surrendered through treaty nor removed by Congress under its plenary power." Justice Anthony Kennedy, then sitting on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, had dissented from that finding, arguing that "Congress did not intend for tribes to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians."〔Duthu. Ibid. Page 19.〕 Although ''Oliphant'' addressed tribal authority regarding criminal matters, the case was invoked in ''Montana v. United States'' since it concerns tribal authority—criminal, civil, and regulatory—regarding non-members. 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.〔Duthu. Ibid. Page 38.〕 The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Crow Nation could regulate hunting and fishing on tribal lands, and had jurisdiction over “conduct which threatens or has some direct effect” upon the tribe’s "political integrity, economic security, and health or welfare," but a seemingly simple trial turned into a famous court case, with ongoing repercussions.〔Duthu. Ibid. Page 36.〕 ==Background== In October 1973, the Crow Tribal Council enacted Resolution Tribal Edict No. 74-05, to restrict fishing in response to increasing food prices and tribal enrollment, coupled with decreasing supplies of fish and game on the reservation. In May 1974, James Junior Finch, a non-tribal member, went fishing, in open defiance of the tribal resolution. Charges were filed against Finch in district court. In September, District Court Judge James Battin ruled (for the moment) that the Bighorn riverbed was held in trust by the United States for the tribe. This ruling was consistent with one he made three years earlier, declaring in 1971 that, since the U.S. did not expressly withhold the riverbed in any of the Fort Laramie treaties, it gave the tribes “absolute right of use over the area described.” In that ruling Battin made note that the Crow reservation was superimposed on traditional Crow territory. In April 1975, Battin overruled the decision he made 8 months earlier. He now decided that the riverbed in question was owned by the state. He asserted that the tribe did not have the “exclusive right to fish” since the first Fort Laramie in 1851 only referred to fishing as a “mere privilege” and the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty “does not contain any reference to fishing.” Battin further concluded that the tribe lacked sufficient sovereignty to regulate non-members from fishing and hunting on the reservation. “The blunt fact…is that an Indian tribe is sovereign to the extent the United States permits it to be -- neither more nor less.” Days after this decision, the tribe approved a special ordinance and resolution in response to Battin’s ruling and reasserted their authority to regulate non-members' sporting activities on tribal land, empowering tribal game wardens and police to arrest non-members going on the reservation to boat, fish, trap, or hunt. They also appealed Battin’s decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Chairman Patrick Stands Over Bull, Thomas Lynaugh (attorney), and eighteen other delegates went to D.C. to "argue their case" to the government. The tribe felt that Battin’s ruling undermined their sovereignty as well as threatened future coal production and water rights. In December 1976, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge Battin’s decision. Judge Anthony Kennedy held that the riverbed fell within the boundaries of the reservation and was therefore owned by the U.S. and the Crow Tribe. Kennedy also made reference to the Fort Laramie treaties, stating that the establishment of the reservation was to provide a permanent homeland for the people and that they had every right to the resources contained within it. Kennedy applied traditional canons of Indian law by stating that the negotiations of the two treaties had no other meaning to the natives other than the fact that the “government recognized all lands within the metes and bounds of the reservation were theirs.” In July 1978, on remand, Battin once again ruled in favor of the state, concluding that the U.S. did not reserve the river bed for the tribe, that the “Crow tribe was not indigenous historically to either Montana or Wyoming,” that they were a nomadic people with origins in Canada. Despite testimony from Joe Medicine Crow and Henry Old Coyote supporting the fact that Crows routinely fished and often supplemented their diet with fish, Battin concluded that “fishing was not central to the Crow diet.” Battin then addressed the issue of whether or not the State has power to regulate hunting and fishing by non-members within reservation limits. Again, Battin ruled in favor of the state, holding that Montana did have authority to regulate non-members on the river and on all non-Indian fee land within the reservation. Battin also concluded that the state had “concurrent jurisdiction” with the U.S. to regulate these activities on tribal land if the activities violated state law. Battin addressed tribal rights by stating that, while they retain the right to give permission to non-members to hunt and fish on tribal lands, tribes do not have the power to regulate non-members unless specifically granted by an “act of Congress,” referring to ''Oliphant v. Suquamish''. In June 1979, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned Battin’s ruling, holding that the river (bed and banks) was held by the United States in trust for the Crow tribe. Addressing the emergent regulatory issues, they ruled that the tribal resolution 74-05 was invalid only when it came to “resident non-members” on fee land that they personally owned, and that the resolution was valid when it came to regulating “non-resident non-member owners of land and resident non-members on any other territory” within the reservation. The tribe could regulate both members and non-members as long as the non-members were not subjected to criminal sanctions and the process was carried out in a non-discriminatory fashion, consistent with conservation principles. Both parties were dissatisfied with the decision and both petitioned for a rehearing, but both of these petitions were denied. In April 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the state of Montana’s petition for certiorari. In the ensuing briefings, Montana’s attorneys argued that lands under navigable waters on federal land were supposed to be held in trust by the U.S. for the State. States are considered to have “equal footing” in this regard. They argued that the tribe held no authority to regulate non-members on non-Indian lands within the reservation and that the “allotment legislation” voided any treaty-based authority given to the tribe. They supported these claims with the ''Oliphant'' case, which denied tribes inherent sovereign authority to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. The U.S. and Crow attorneys contended that the U.S. appropriated the land in question prior to statehood for the benefit of the Crow tribe and that the tribe did not expressly cede the rights in question in any treaty. They urged that the Allotment acts did not in any way change or “dilute” treaty rights.〔Goldberg, Carole, Philip P. Frickey, and Kevin K. Washburn. ''Indian Law Stories''. New York: Thomas Reuters/Foundation Press, 2011.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Montana v. United States」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|