People ex rel. Harris v. Black Hawk Tobacco, Inc.
197 Cal. App. 4th 1561
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Band is a federally recognized tribe with trust lands in eastern Riverside County; Band adopted a 1985 ordinance prohibiting cigarette sales on reservation to non-Indians except compliant with California law or to Indians on the reservation.
- Black Hawk, a California corporation operated four stores on Band trust lands; McAllister is Sac and Fox Nation member and owner of Black Hawk; Band ordinance requires compliance with California cigarette laws.
- People filed suit alleging unlawful business practices and violations of state and federal cigarette laws, including off-directory, untaxed cigarette sales and CCTA violations; trial court granted a preliminary injunction.
- Defendants removed to federal court, which remanded; trial court overruled demurrer and held tribal sovereignty did not apply since defendants were not Band members.
- In 2010 tribal council stated Black Hawk was operating illegally under Tribal Law; court granted injunction prohibiting off-directory, non-fire-safe-certified untaxed cigarette sales to non-Indians; allowed certain sales to members of tribes.
- Dispositional posture: appellate court affirming preliminary injunction and keeping it in force; costs awarded to People on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California may regulate tobacco sales on Band reservation | People argue state law applies; federal and state interests justify injunction | Black Hawk argues Band has exclusive authority over reservation tobacco sales | Yes; state authority may regulate on reservation; injunction affirmed |
| Likelihood of success on merits | People will likely prevail on merits given noncompliance with state and federal laws | Band sovereignty or preemption defenses undermine likelihood | People likely to prevail; court did not abuse discretion |
| Preemption and tribal sovereignty | Preemption not established; state laws applicable | Tribal sovereignty precludes state regulation on reservation | State authority sustained; no reversible error in injunction |
| Grave or irreparable harm to defendants | Public interest outweighs harms; list of safe alternatives shows no grave harm | Shutting down operations would cause irreparable harm to employees and business | No grave or irreparable harm; injunction proper |
| Impact of tribal ordinance on California laws | Tribal ordinance aligns with California laws; supports enforcement | Ordinance undermines state authority | Tribal ordinance did not negate state enforcement; injunction remains valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981) (tribal sovereignty limits; state regulation on nonmembers may be allowed where outside reservation interests prevail)
- Washington v. Confederated Tribes, 447 U.S. 134 (1980) (state may require tax collection from nonmembers on reservation; accommodation of tribal and state interests)
- Moe v. Salish & Kootenai Tribes, 425 U.S. 463 (1976) (state taxes may apply to sales by tribal enterprises; limited tribal regulatory authority)
- New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U.S. 324 (1983) (recognizes limits on tribal sovereignty and circumstances where state authority may apply on reservation)
- Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001) (state authority over on-reservation activities of Indians when outside federal preemption is lacking)