586 U.S. 347
SCOTUS2019Background
- Washington imposes a per‑gallon tax/licensing regime on "motor vehicle fuel licensees" and specifically collects from licensed importers who bring fuel into the State by ground transportation (truck, trailer, railcar), but not when entry is by pipeline or vessel.
- Cougar Den, a wholesale fuel importer owned by a Yakama Nation member, bought fuel in Oregon and trucked it over Washington public highways to sell on the Yakama Reservation.
- Washington Department of Licensing assessed Cougar Den about $3.6 million in taxes, penalties, and fees for those imports; Cougar Den claimed the 1855 Yakama treaty pre‑empted the tax as applied to its activities.
- Washington administrative and trial processes produced mixed rulings; the Washington Supreme Court held the tax was pre‑empted and the State petitioned for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- The central treaty clause reserves to the Yakama Nation "the right, in common with citizens of the United States, to travel upon all public highways," and the parties disputed whether that reservation protects travel with goods from nondiscriminatory state taxation or regulation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cougar Den) | Defendant's Argument (Washington) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Washington levy is an impermissible burden on the Yakama treaty right to travel on public highways with goods | The tax falls on importation by ground transport and thus burdens treaty‑protected travel with goods to market; treaty preempts the tax as applied | The statute is a nondiscriminatory tax on possession/importation of fuel (a fuel tax), not a tax on travel; applies equally to all and does not burden the treaty right | Held preempted: statute, as applied to Cougar Den’s highway importation of fuel, is preempted by the 1855 treaty |
| Proper characterization of the statutory incidence (tax on travel vs. tax on possession/importation) | The statute’s operation (liability triggered only when fuel enters by ground transport) makes it a tax on travel/importation by highway | The tax is plainly on motor vehicle fuel (per gallon), not on movement; timing/place of assessment does not change object of tax | Court accepts state‑supreme‑court construction that the law taxes importation by ground transport and thus operates on travel with goods |
| Scope of the treaty right and permissible state regulation | The treaty, as the Yakamas understood it in 1855, protects the right to travel with goods to/from market free of state tolls/fees; nondiscriminatory fees that act as a charge for exercising that right are preempted; limited regulatory exceptions (safety, conservation) remain | "In common with" means equal treatment with other citizens; nondiscriminatory highway regulations and taxes that apply equally do not violate the treaty | Court concludes treaty protects travel with goods for trade and that exactions that effectively charge for that right are preempted; state retains power to impose necessary nondiscriminatory safety/conservation regulations |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371 (1905) (treaty terms must be interpreted as Indians understood them; "in common with" can secure rights beyond nondiscrimination)
- Seufert Brothers Co. v. United States, 249 U.S. 194 (1919) (similar treatment of treaty construction and protection of tribal access to resources)
- Tulee v. Washington, 315 U.S. 681 (1942) (state license fee that acts as a charge for exercising a treaty right is preempted)
- Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Assn., 443 U.S. 658 (1979) (tribal treaty rights may provide protections greater than mere nondiscrimination; states retain narrow conservation authority)
- Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Chickasaw Nation, 515 U.S. 450 (1995) (incidence of tax is a state‑law question; states may shift legal incidence but cannot burden federal/trust rights)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (federal courts defer to state supreme courts on state‑law constructions)
- Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145 (1973) (treaties and federal law preempt conflicting state law as applied to tribal matters)
- Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172 (1999) (when construing tribal treaties, courts must give effect to terms as Indians would have understood them)
- Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Wash., 391 U.S. 392 (1968) (states may impose reasonable, necessary, nondiscriminatory conservation regulations on treaty rights)