Lil’ Brown Smoke Shop v. Wasden — Challenge to Idaho Tobacco Statute

The court denied a motion for a preliminary injunction by a smoke shop seeking to prevent enforcement of Idaho’s Minor’s Access Act. Here are the materials:

Lil Brown Smoke Shack DCT Order

Lil Brown Smoke Shack Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Idaho Opposition

Lil Brown Smoke Shack Reply

An excerpt:

Here, Defendants argue that, if the Bracker balancing test applies, the permit requirement is an important state interest outweighing the tribal interests. Specifically, Defendants argue that the permit requirement allows the State of Idaho to control the ability of minors to obtain tobacco by ensuring that the Department of Health and Welfare has a central repository of all businesses marketing tobacco to Idaho residents with a uniform set of data which facilities compliance and monitoring. Defendants contend this interest outweighs the relevant tribal interests identified by Plaintiff, partially because the burden on Plaintiff in submitting annually to a no-charge permit is non existent. However, Defendants do not address Plaintiff’s contention that the right to make employment decisions, business decisions, and the right to exclude persons from the reservation are longstanding tribal interests that, although they do not singularly justify non compliance with the MAA, must be balanced in the Bracker test particularly with respect to the other contested provisions of the MAA. The Court agrees that the Bracker test should be applied.

The Court finds that, even though the Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits with respect to the permit requirement is low, the likelihood of success with respect to the other provisions of the MAA is more plausible. However, Plaintiff has failed to clearly demonstrate that it is likely to succeed on these claims. Thus, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction on Plaintiff’s tribal sovereignty challenges will be denied.

Fond du Lac Band v. Einess — State Can Tax Out of State Income of Reservation Indians

This is a few months old. No word on an appeal. Here are the materials:

DCT Order in Fond du Lac Band v Einess

Fond du Lac Complaint

Fond du Lac First Motion for Summary Judgment

Fond du Lac Amended Motion for Summary J

Minnesota Opposition to Motion for Summary J

Fond du Lac Reply Brief

Idaho Supreme Court Rejects Indian Challenge to Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement

Here is the opinion in State of Idaho ex rel. Wasden v. Maybee.

An excerpt:

Scott B. Maybee challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the State of Idaho. Maybee argues that Idaho’s Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement Complementary Act (Complementary Act) is inapplicable to his conduct, as the Complementary Act was not intended to regulate unstamped cigarettes sold in interstate commerce. Maybee also contends that the Complementary Act is preempted as it applies to him, under both the Interstate Commerce Clause and the Indian Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as Maybee is a Native American, living and conducting business upon a reservation located in the state of New York. Maybee argues that the tobacco permit requirement of Idaho’s Prevention of Minors’ Access to Tobacco Act (MAA) is likewise preempted by the Indian Commerce Clause.

Federal Court Rules against Yakama Nation in Tax Dispute with Washington State

Here is the opinion in Yakama Indian Nation v. Gregoire (E.D. Wash.): Yakama DCT Order on X-Motions for Summary J

Here are the motions:

State Motion for Summary J

Yakama Motion for Summary J

Bracker Motions for Summary Judgment Filed in Chehalis v. Thurston County

Here are those briefs:

Chehalis Motion for Summary J

Thurston County Motion for Summary J

Prior materials on this important case are here.

Scott Taylor on Indian Taxation after Carcieri

Scott Taylor has posted “Taxation in Indian Country after Carcieri v. Salazar,” forthcoming in the William Mitchell Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

Federally recognized Indian tribes are governments within our federal legal system. Tribes have aboriginal sovereignty that provides them with inherent governmental powers, such as the power to tax. Tribal sovereignty also protects tribes from state interference, such as state taxation of tribal lands. Both the exercise of tribal governmental powers and the tribal immunity from state interference have a territorial component. This makes the status of Indian lands a critical inquiry into tribal/state relations. Because of the importance of land status in federal Indian law, especially in matters involving taxation, the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Carcieri v. Salazar deserves special attention. In the Carcieri case, the Court held that the Secretary of the Interior did not have the statutory authority to place lands into trust on behalf of Indian tribes that were recognized after the enactment of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. This article explores taxation in Indian Country after Carcier

29 Palms Band v. Schwarzeneggar State Income Tax Case

As this article reports, the 29 Palms Band sued the State of California over gaming-related income on behalf of its off-reservation members. The court granted an earlier motion to dismiss, but allowed the Band leave to file an amended complaint on whether IGRA preempts state taxation.

Here are the materials so far:

California Motion to Dismiss

29 Palms Band Opposition

California Reply

Sept DCT Order Granting California Motion to Dismiss

29 Palms Band Amended Complaint

California Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint

Appellate Briefs in Osage Nation v. Kemp Tax/Reservation Disestablishment Case

Here:

Osage Nation Opening Brief

OTC Appellee Brief

Osage Nation Reply Brief

Lower court materials are here.

Senecas to Target State Politicians Opposing Tribal Tax Immunities

From the Buffalo News via Pechanga:

ALBANY — Seen as cash cows for a cash-starved state government, the Seneca Nation is expanding its latest strategy to block tax collection efforts on its lucrative cigarette operations: The tribe will target, with campaign cash, state politicians who openly oppose the tax-free sales.

The Senecas are launching efforts to help defeat three Senate Republicans whom they call “hostile to the nation’s interests” for pushing collection of what lawmakers say could be as much as $1 billion a year in lost cigarette tax revenues by the Indian retail sales.

The lawmakers, two from upstate and one from Brooklyn, challenged the Seneca representatives at a hearing Tuesday in Manhattan called by the Senate Investigations Committee to examine the Paterson administration’s policy of not collecting the taxes on tobacco products sold by Indian retailers to non-Indians.

In a letter obtained by The Buffalo News to members of the Senecas’ Foreign Relations Committee, J. C. Seneca, the panel’s co-chairman, said the lawmakers — senators Michael Nozzolio, George Winner and Martin Golden — had “expressed tremendous hostility to our treaty rights and to our immunity from state excise taxes being collected in our territories” during Tuesday’s hearing.

Continue reading

Shinnecock Member Asks Supreme Court to Overturn Cherokee Nation v. Georgia

Here is the cert petition in Smith v. Shulman, a tax case — Smith v Shulman Cert Petition

Questions presented:

I. Whether a “rebate” to a reservation Indian is income?

II. Whether a District Court is barred by statute from exercising subject matter jurisdiction, when an Indian treaty provides a free trade right and a procedural dispute resolution right?

III. Whether this Court should overturn The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831)insofar as the case provides the legal underpinning of United States’ jurisdiction over Indian reservations, where this Court interpreted the Commerce Clause language of “with” to mean “over” and found Indian tribes to be “domestic dependent nations” rather than “foreign nations,” an error in Constitutional interpretation and a historical wrong against Native Americans?