Big Sandy Rancheria Enters. v. Rob Bonta, 1 F.4th 710

Background

Big Sandy Rancheria Enterprises (BSRE) is a federally chartered §17 tribal corporation wholly owned and governed by the Big Sandy Rancheria; it buys cigarettes from tribal manufacturers and distributes them to tribal retailers on other tribes’ reservations.
California enforces a Cigarette Tax Law (excise stamps), a Licensing Act (annual distributor licenses), reporting/recordkeeping rules, and a Tobacco Directory Law that bars sale of off-directory (non‑compliant) cigarettes; California exempts on‑reservation sales to tribal members from state excise tax.
BSRE sued the California Attorney General and the CDTFA Director seeking declaratory/injunctive relief, arguing federal common law, tribal sovereignty, and the Indian Trader Statutes preempt application of the Cigarette Tax Law, the Directory Statute, and licensing/recordkeeping requirements as applied to its intertribal wholesale business.
The district court dismissed BSRE’s tax claim for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act (TIA) and dismissed the remaining claims for failure to state a claim. BSRE appealed.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed: TIA bars the federal tax claim because BSRE cannot invoke the §1362 Indian‑tribes exception (the court concluded a §17 corporation is not an "Indian tribe or band" for §1362); the court also held California’s directory, licensing, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements apply to BSRE’s off‑reservation tribe‑to‑tribe sales and are not preempted by the Indian Trader Statutes.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Tax Injunction Act bars federal jurisdiction over BSRE’s challenge to California’s cigarette excise tax and whether BSRE can invoke §1362 (the "Indian tribes" exception).	BSRE argued it is an "incorporated tribe" under IRA §17 and thus an "Indian tribe or band" under 28 U.S.C. §1362, so TIA does not bar federal jurisdiction.	California argued BSRE is a §17 corporate enterprise (an economic arm), not an "Indian tribe or band" for §1362 purposes, so TIA bars the federal tax suit.	Affirmed dismissal: TIA bars the tax claim; §1362 does not cover the §17 corporation, so no federal jurisdiction.
Whether California’s Tobacco Directory Law and related restrictions infringe tribal self‑governance as applied to BSRE’s intertribal sales.	BSRE contended the laws interfere with tribal self‑government and tribal commerce within Indian country (sales to tribal retailers on other reservations).	California argued BSRE’s tribe‑to‑tribe sales occur off the Rancheria for sovereignty analysis and are subject to non‑discriminatory state laws of general application.	Affirmed dismissal: Sales off the Rancheria are "off‑reservation" for these purposes; BSRE failed to plausibly allege discrimination or that state laws infringe tribal self‑governance.
Whether the Indian Trader Statutes (25 U.S.C. §§261–64) preempt California’s Directory, licensing, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements as applied to BSRE.	BSRE argued the Statutes comprehensively regulate trade with Indians in Indian country and therefore preempt state regulation of its intertribal transactions.	California relied on Supreme Court precedent limiting the Statutes’ preemptive scope and argued its rules impose only reasonable, minimal burdens to prevent tax evasion.	Affirmed dismissal: BSRE did not allege federal licensing/oversight or a pervasive federal scheme here; under Milhelm and related cases, the Statutes do not bar these reasonable state requirements.

Key Cases Cited

Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) (states cannot impose excise tax on tribe or tribal members for on‑reservation sales absent congressional authorization)
Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145 (1973) (off‑reservation tribal commercial activity is generally subject to non‑discriminatory state law)
Moe v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, 425 U.S. 463 (1976) (§1362 creates an Indian‑tribes exception to the Tax Injunction Act)
Grace Brethren Church v. California, 457 U.S. 393 (1982) (TIA bars federal declaratory relief interfering with state tax collection)
Warren Trading Post Co. v. Ariz. State Tax Comm’n, 380 U.S. 685 (1965) (Indian Trader Statutes can preempt state taxes on traders selling to reservation Indians under certain circumstances)
Central Machinery Co. v. Ariz. Tax Comm’n, 448 U.S. 160 (1980) (Indian Trader Statutes preempt state tax on certain reservation transactions where federal plans would be disturbed)
Colville v. Washington, 447 U.S. 134 (1980) (Statutes don’t shield sales by Indians to nonmembers; state recordkeeping/tax collection may be upheld)
Milhelm Attea & Bros., Inc. v. Dep’t of Tax’n & Fin. of New York, 512 U.S. 61 (1994) (Indian Trader Statutes do not categorically bar reasonable state regulatory burdens like licensing and recordkeeping)
Navajo Tribal Utility Auth. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 608 F.2d 1228 (9th Cir. 1979) (§1362 does not extend to wholly owned subordinate tribal economic entities)