31:
267:
435: (1976) in support but then pointed out that the tribe's argument failed based on the reading of the law. An opt-in state, like Washington, which assumes partial jurisdiction, is nonetheless required by the statute to assume full jurisdiction upon the request of the tribe. He stated that the partial jurisdiction still left room for tribal self-government and reflected an attempt to accommodate the needs of both the tribe and the state. The court denied the second argument.
465:
480:, dissented. Marshall noted that for over 140 years, the Supreme Court had decided that any statutory construction must be resolved in favor of the Indian tribe. In this case, the ambiguities in the law were resolved in favor of the state, instead of the tribe. He would have affirmed the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court.
413:
delivered the opinion of the court. He dismissed the first argument, noting that the
Enabling Act that made Washington a state merely required the consent of the United States and that Public Law 280 explicitly provided that consent was given provided that a state either amended their constitution or
294:
transferred law enforcement authority from the federal government to state law enforcement in six states, and other states were allowed to assume criminal jurisdiction if the affected Indian (Native
American) tribe gave its consent. The idea was to divest the tribes of jurisdiction in matters that
370:
The tribe also argued that since partial jurisdiction was not specifically authorized by Public Law 280, it was not authorized at all. The fact that the states that were mandated to assume criminal jurisdiction also had to assume civil jurisdiction throughout the Indian lands in those states. The
299:
enacted a statute to assume such jurisdiction. This statute provided that the state would only assume criminal jurisdiction with a tribe's consent, with eight exceptions. The tribe did not consent to the state assuming criminal jurisdiction, and objected to being subject to the eight listed
371:
tribe reasoned that the states that assumed jurisdiction voluntarily also had to assume total jurisdiction or none at all. The United States argued that the law was passed in order reduce federal monetary burdens, to enhance law enforcement protection for
Indians, and to provide for
283:
in 1859, under this treaty the tribe reserved to itself 1,387,505 acres (561,503 ha; 2,167.977 sq mi) for its reservation, as well as the right to exercise certain reserved rights on ceded lands and usual and accustomed locations. The reservation has tribal land and
438:
The court also ruled against the tribe on their third argument, reversing the decision of the Ninth
Circuit Court. White noted that in dealing with Indian tribes that the federal government was able to enact "legislation that might otherwise be constitutionally offensive," citing
456: (1974). While states do not have the same relationship with Indian tribes, Chapter 36 was enacted in specific response to a federal law that was designed to change the jurisdiction over the tribes. Thus, Chapter 36 did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
366:
argued that to be able to apply Public Law 280, the state had to amend their constitution to assume jurisdiction. The state argued that the state legislature, in passing
Chapter 36, had complied with the requirements of federal law to assume jurisdiction.
323:, on the limited question of whether the state could assume partial jurisdiction. The court found that there was no prohibition on the state assuming partial jurisdiction and referred the remainder of the case to the original three-judge panel.
417:
He agreed with a portion of the United States' second argument, that the law was passed for monetary burdens, tribal law enforcement protection, and assimilation. He stated that it was clear both from the legislative record and cited
278:
is an Indian tribe with its reservation in southern
Washington. The tribe comprises 14 distinct Indian tribes that the U.S. banded together in the 1850s for the purpose of treaty making. The current treaty was ratified by the
304:
516:
In 1994, the spelling of the tribe's name was changed from Yakima to Yakama to reflect the name used in the treaty between the confederation of tribes and the U.S. The state still spells the city and county as
378:
Finally, the tribe argued that the "checkerboard" violated the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, claiming that the classifications in Chapter 36 were racial ones and as such, suspect under
870:
535:
The exceptions were compulsory school attendance, public assistance, domestic relations, mental illness, juvenile delinquency, adoption proceedings, dependent children, and motor vehicle operations.
258:
held that the State of
Washington's imposition of partial jurisdiction over certain actions on an Indian reservation, when not requested by the tribe, was valid under Public Law 280.
880:
331:
786:
582:
446:
425:
386:
72:
307:
seeking relief from the enforcement of the eight exceptions. The
District Court rejected the tribe's claims and entered judgment for the state. The tribe then appealed to the
130:
The State of
Washington's imposition of partial jurisdiction over certain actions on an Indian reservation, when not requested by the tribe, was valid under Public Law 280.
497:
875:
344:
and requested that the parties brief the court on the issues of partial geographic and subject matter jurisdiction as well as the Equal Protection Clause.
865:
372:
860:
308:
797:
255:
35:
360:. On becoming a state, Washington disclaimed any jurisdiction over Indian lands. Both the tribe and the United States, as
288:. The fee land is owned by both tribal members and non-Indians, and tribal members are outnumbered greatly by non-Indians.
353:
334:. The court found no way to separate the offending portion of the statute and declared the entirety of the state law
760:
Hartley, Roger C. (2007). "Congressional Devolution of Immigration Policymaking: A Separation of Powers Critique".
662:
601:
232:
414:
passed a statute to enable jurisdiction in Indian lands. The court ruled in favor of the state on that argument.
741:
Chang, Howard F. (2002). "Public Benefits and Federal Authorization for Alienage Discrimination by the States".
357:
698:
490:
477:
327:
104:
833:
118:
680:
641:
420:
153:
790:
586:
450:
429:
390:
381:
64:
280:
815:
710:
326:
The panel of the Court of Appeals found that the "checkerboard jurisdictional system" violated the
185:
296:
824:
266:
473:
441:
335:
197:
189:
173:
806:
145:
311:. After the original three judge panel heard oral arguments, the Court of Appeals decided
885:
622:
Anderson, Robert T. (2003). "Criminal Jurisdiction, Tribal Courts and Public Defenders".
589:
453:
432:
393:
291:
177:
161:
854:
362:
275:
610:
464:
241:
67:
410:
165:
644:(1989). "Dependent Sovereigns: Indian Tribes, States, and the Federal Courts".
340:
313:
285:
83:
79:
842:
783:
Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation
694:
Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation v. Washington
676:
Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation v. Washington
579:
Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation
319:
251:
Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation
54:
Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation
24:
Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation
356:
did not allow the state to assume jurisdiction over Indians without a
214:
Stewart, joined by Burger, White, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens
295:
were "deemed to be outside their competence". In 1963, the state of
338:. The state then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted
463:
265:
115:
101:
30:
526:
Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin
722:
Peterson, Mark R.; Tong, May Lee (1983). "Indian Law".
871:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
226:
218:
210:
205:
134:
124:
110:
96:
91:
59:
49:
42:
23:
602:
468:Justice Marshall, author of the dissenting opinion
233:
254:, 439 U.S. 463 (1979), was a case in which the
881:Native American history of Washington (state)
701: (Ninth Cir. 1977) ("Yakima II").
8:
683: (Ninth Cir. 1977) ("Yakima I").
20:
574:
572:
570:
568:
566:
564:
562:
560:
558:
556:
554:
552:
550:
546:
509:
352:The Yakama tribe argued first that the
876:United States Native American case law
309:Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
18:1979 United States Supreme Court case
7:
762:Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol'y
607:Tooltip Public Law (United States)
256:Supreme Court of the United States
238:Tooltip Public Law (United States)
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
866:United States Supreme Court cases
793:463 (1979) is available from:
375:of Indians into general society.
29:
861:1979 in United States case law
1:
354:Washington state constitution
303:The tribe then filed suit in
270:Yakama Indian Reservation map
222:Marshall, joined by Brennan
902:
843:Oyez (oral argument audio)
663:Revised Code of Washington
624:Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y
231:
139:
129:
28:
358:constitutional amendment
45:Decided January 16, 1979
491:United States v. Winans
328:Equal Protection Clause
711:Wash. Const. art. XXVI
469:
421:Bryan v. Itasca County
271:
154:William J. Brennan Jr.
43:Argued October 2, 1978
724:Golden Gate U. L. Rev
699:552 F.2d 1332
467:
382:McLaughlin v. Florida
269:
681:550 F.2d 443
476:, joined by Justice
332:Fourteenth Amendment
834:Library of Congress
665:, Section 37.12.010
305:U.S. District Court
186:Lewis F. Powell Jr.
470:
460:Dissenting opinion
272:
150:Associate Justices
78:99 S. Ct. 740; 58
474:Thurgood Marshall
442:Morton v. Mancari
317:to hear the case
247:
246:
190:William Rehnquist
174:Thurgood Marshall
893:
847:
841:
838:
832:
829:
823:
820:
814:
811:
805:
802:
796:
770:
769:
757:
751:
750:
738:
732:
731:
719:
713:
708:
702:
696:
690:
684:
678:
672:
666:
660:
654:
653:
638:
632:
631:
619:
613:
608:
604:
599:
593:
576:
536:
533:
527:
524:
518:
514:
498:Pocket Veto Case
405:Majority opinion
336:unconstitutional
286:land held in fee
239:
235:
146:Warren E. Burger
135:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
901:
900:
896:
895:
894:
892:
891:
890:
851:
850:
845:
839:
836:
830:
827:
821:
818:
812:
809:
803:
800:
794:
778:
773:
759:
758:
754:
740:
739:
735:
721:
720:
716:
709:
705:
692:
691:
687:
674:
673:
669:
661:
657:
640:
639:
635:
621:
620:
616:
606:
600:
596:
577:
548:
544:
539:
534:
530:
525:
521:
515:
511:
507:
486:
478:William Brennan
462:
407:
402:
350:
264:
237:
198:John P. Stevens
188:
176:
164:
87:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
899:
897:
889:
888:
883:
878:
873:
868:
863:
853:
852:
849:
848:
816:Google Scholar
777:
776:External links
774:
772:
771:
752:
733:
714:
703:
685:
667:
655:
646:U. Chi. L. Rev
642:Resnik, Judith
633:
614:
594:
545:
543:
540:
538:
537:
528:
519:
508:
506:
503:
502:
501:
494:
485:
482:
461:
458:
406:
403:
401:
398:
349:
346:
292:Public Law 280
263:
260:
245:
244:
229:
228:
224:
223:
220:
216:
215:
212:
208:
207:
203:
202:
201:
200:
178:Harry Blackmun
162:Potter Stewart
151:
148:
143:
137:
136:
132:
131:
127:
126:
122:
121:
112:
108:
107:
98:
94:
93:
89:
88:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
898:
887:
884:
882:
879:
877:
874:
872:
869:
867:
864:
862:
859:
858:
856:
844:
835:
826:
817:
808:
799:
798:CourtListener
792:
788:
784:
780:
779:
775:
767:
763:
756:
753:
748:
744:
743:N.Y.U. L. Rev
737:
734:
729:
725:
718:
715:
712:
707:
704:
700:
695:
689:
686:
682:
677:
671:
668:
664:
659:
656:
651:
647:
643:
637:
634:
629:
625:
618:
615:
612:
605:
598:
595:
591:
588:
584:
580:
575:
573:
571:
569:
567:
565:
563:
561:
559:
557:
555:
553:
551:
547:
541:
532:
529:
523:
520:
513:
510:
504:
500:
499:
495:
493:
492:
488:
487:
483:
481:
479:
475:
466:
459:
457:
455:
452:
448:
444:
443:
436:
434:
431:
427:
423:
422:
415:
412:
404:
399:
397:
396: (1964).
395:
392:
388:
384:
383:
376:
374:
368:
365:
364:
363:amicus curiae
359:
355:
347:
345:
343:
342:
337:
333:
329:
324:
322:
321:
316:
315:
310:
306:
301:
298:
293:
289:
287:
282:
277:
276:Yakama Nation
268:
261:
259:
257:
253:
252:
243:
236:
230:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
206:Case opinions
204:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
147:
144:
142:Chief Justice
141:
140:
138:
133:
128:
123:
120:
117:
113:
109:
106:
103:
99:
95:
90:
85:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
782:
765:
761:
755:
746:
742:
736:
727:
723:
717:
706:
693:
688:
675:
670:
658:
649:
645:
636:
627:
623:
617:
597:
578:
531:
522:
512:
496:
489:
471:
440:
437:
419:
416:
408:
380:
377:
373:assimilation
369:
361:
351:
339:
325:
318:
312:
302:
300:exceptions.
290:
273:
250:
249:
248:
227:Laws applied
193:
181:
169:
157:
92:Case history
71:
53:
15:
592: (1979)
411:Byron White
166:Byron White
855:Categories
749:: 357–370.
730:: 329–365.
652:: 671–760.
630:: 139–152.
542:References
341:certiorari
314:sua sponte
297:Washington
262:Background
111:Subsequent
84:U.S. LEXIS
82:740; 1979
768:: 93–157.
348:Arguments
80:L. Ed. 2d
60:Citations
781:Text of
484:See also
472:Justice
409:Justice
400:Decision
211:Majority
807:Findlaw
603:Pub. L.
517:Yakima.
330:of the
320:en banc
234:Pub. L.
219:Dissent
125:Holding
886:Yakama
846:
840:
837:
831:
828:
825:Justia
822:
819:
813:
810:
804:
801:
795:
697:,
679:,
611:83–280
609:
281:Senate
242:83–280
240:
196:
194:·
192:
184:
182:·
180:
172:
170:·
168:
160:
158:·
156:
789:
585:
505:Notes
449:
428:
389:
97:Prior
791:U.S.
587:U.S.
451:U.S.
430:U.S.
391:U.S.
274:The
116:F.2d
114:608
105:1332
102:F.2d
100:552
73:more
65:U.S.
63:439
787:439
590:463
583:439
454:535
447:417
433:373
426:426
394:184
387:379
119:750
68:463
857::
785:,
764:.
747:58
745:.
728:13
726:.
650:56
648:.
628:13
626:.
581:,
549:^
445:,
424:,
385:,
86:55
766:2
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.