*1 OKLAHOMA TAX CITIZEN BAND COMMISSION POTAWATOMI INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA January No. Argued February 89-1322. 1991 Decided *2 Rehnquist, Court. Ste- J., opinion for delivered the a unanimous C. vens, J., p. concurring opinion, post, 514. filed a Miley petitioner. argued With Allen the cause
David Elkouri. Mark him on the briefs was Joe argued the cause for the United States Edwin Kneedler him the brief were Solicitor Gen- curiae. With as amicus Deputy Attorney Stewart, General So- Starr, Assistant eral Klarquist. Wallace, L. and Robert licitor General argued respondent. Michael Minnis cause With Lindsay him on the brief was G. Simmons* opinion delivered the Rehnquist Chief Justice Court. presented in this issue case is whether a that has State
not over asserted may validly Indian lands under Public Law goods sales to tribesmen and nonmem- occurring federally recognized bers on land held trust for Indian tribe. We conclude that under doctrine sovereign immunity, may the State tax such to Indi- not sales *3 collect ans, but remains free to taxes sales to on nonmembers of the tribe.
Respondent, the Band Citizen Potawatomi Indian Tribe of (Potawatomis Tribe), operates Oklahoma or and owns a con- by venience store Oklahoma on land trust held for many years, For Federal Government. the Potawatomis cigarettes have sold at the store convenience without collect- ing cigarette In 1987, Oklahoma’sstate tax on these sales. (Oklahoma petitioner, the Oklahoma Tax or Commission Commission), served the with an Potawatomis assessment they demanding pay ciga- letter, millionfor on taxes $2.7 occurring rette sales between 1982and 1986. The Potawato- enjoin mis filed suit to the assessment the United States District for the Western District of Oklahoma. Court asking counterclaimed,
Oklahoma the District Court to en- enjoin force its million claim the Tribe and to $2.7 cigarettes selling Potawatomis from in the future without col- Cheyenne- urging amici curiae were filed for the *Briefs of affirmance by et Arapaho Melody McCoy, Tribes of Oklahoma al. L. Teresa Yvonne Gottschalk, Chambers, Knight, Whiteing, Kim Jerome Reid P. Jeanne S. III, Fredericks, Hirsch, Thompson Robert Thomas W. Bertram E. and Trope; by F. for the Council Five Tribes Jack Inter-Tribal Civilized Rabón; Iroquois Businesspersons by Joseph Bob for the Association E. Zdarsky; by Greg- the Sac and Fox Nation et al. G. William Rice and ory Bigler; Seneca-Cayuga H. and for the Tribe of et al. M. Glenn Feldman. remitting
lecting sales. The Pota- state taxes on those and ground on the moved to dismiss counterclaim watomis had and Tribe not waived its not sued District Court could be the State. therefore proceeded motion dismiss and the Potawatomis’ denied merits, the District Court concluded that the On the trial. authority to tax the on-reservation lacked Commission cigarette directly. the Tribe to tribal members or to tax sales immune from therefore, that the Tribe was Oklaho- held, It past directly unpaid from the Tribe. to collect taxes ma’s suit held that Oklahoma could Nonetheless, the District Court prospectively require on- the Tribe to collect taxes Accordingly, to nonmembers of the Tribe. reservation sales non- the Tribe to taxes sales to the court ordered collect recordkeep- comply statutory with all members, and ing requirements. appealed the denial of its motion
The Tribe District Court’s requiring it the court’s order to collect and to dismiss and to nonmembers. The United States remit taxes on sales Appeals F. for the Tenth Circuit reversed. 888 2d Court of erred in That court held that District Court entertaining the Potawa- counterclaims because Oklahoma’s enjoy suit, and had tomis absolute *4 immunity by injunctive filing an that action not waived Appeals held that Oklahoma relief. Court of further any authority impose a on that occur sales lacked the they regardless reservation, of whether are tribes- It con- concluded that “because the men or nonmembers. on land which the Potawatomis venience store is located over authority sovereign powers, to tax retain Oklahoma has no in- unless Oklahoma has received an the store’s transactions jurisdictional grant authority Congress.” dependent jurisdictional Finding independent grant no Id., 1306. at Appeals authority or- Potawatomis, to tax the Court of request grant the Potawatomis’ dered the District Court injunction. for an
509
granted
apparent
We
certiorari to resolve an
conflict with
precedents
clarify
this Court’s
and to
the law of
im-
munity
respect
with
to the collection of sales taxes on Indian
(1990).
part
lands.
I dependent Indian tribes are “domestic nations” that exer- sovereign authority cise inherent over their members and (1831). Georgia, territories. Cherokee Nation v. 1, Pet. against by sovereign Suits Indian tribes are thus barred im- munity congressional absent a clear waiver the tribe or abrogation. Santa Clara Pueblo Martinez, U. S. (1978). acknowledges gener- Petitioner that Indian tribes ally enjoy sovereign immunity, argues but that the Potawato- sovereign immunity by seeking injunc- mis waived their an against proposed tion the Commission’s tax assessment. It argues that, to the extent that the Commission’s counter- “compulsory” claims were under Federal Rule of Civil Proce- 13(a), any independent dure the District Court did not need jurisdictional basis to hear those claims. rejected half-century ago an identical contention over a Fidelity Guaranty
in United States v. United States Co., & surety 511-512 In case, a bond- holder claimed that a federal court had to hear its state-law counterclaim an Indian Tribe because the Tribe’s initial action to enforce the bond constituted a waiver sovereign immunity. We held that a tribe does not waive its from actions that could not otherwise brought against merely be pleaded because those actions were
in Id., counterclaim to an action filed the tribe. “Possessing immunity . . . suit, from direct we are opinion [the possess nations] Indian a similar argue from cross-suits.” Ibid. Oklahoma does not that it congressional adjudicate received authorization to a counter- *5 against Tribe, claim and the case is therefore controlled by Fidelity Guaranty. uphold Appeals’ & the Court of sovereign im- waive its that the Tribe did not
determination filing munity merely by injunctive relief. an action far-reaching, alternative, an and more offers Oklahoma reversing Appeals’ dismissal of its the Court of basis urges to construe more nar- It this Court counterclaims. sovereign entirely, rowly, of the doctrine tribal or abandon sovereign immunity. im- the tribal contends that Oklahoma munity impermissibly the administration of burdens doctrine very proposes least, At the laws. state Guaranty, modify Fidelity because tribal busi- & the Court cigarette as sales are now so detached activities such ness tribal-sovereignty traditional tribal interests longer makes sense in this context. sover- no doctrine eignty be limited to the tribal maintains, should doctrine, government, of because internal affairs tribal courts and the insulating purpose business ventures is served tribal no authority their of the to administer laws. from the States immunity origi was of Indian tribal A doctrine nally has reaffirmed this Court and been enunciated States, 354, Turner v. of cases. United number (1919); supra, Martinez, Pueblo Santa Clara liberty dispense always Congress at with such has been Congress immunity Although limit has occa or to it. tribal sionally Indian limited classes of suits authorized suits to enforce tax assess it has never authorized tribes, Congress consistently ap has reiterated its Instead, ments. g., proval See, e. Indian Financ doctrine. § seq., ing 1451et and the 25 U. S. C. Act of Stat. Act, and Education Assistance Indian Self-Determination § seq. These Acts reflect Con S. C. 450 et 2203, 25 U. Stat. self-government, “goal promote gress’ Indian desire encouraging ‘overriding goal’ including self- its development.” sufficiency v. Cab and economic California 202, 216 480 U. S. Indians, Band Mission azon modify disposed to we are not circumstances, these Under sovereign immunity. principle long-established of tribal
511 Oklahoma asserts even if Finally, that sovereign immunity to direct actions applies against tribes from activities arising on reservation, the that immunity should not to the apply facts of this case. The State contends that the Potawatomis’ in cigarette not, sales do fact, occur a Re- “reservation.” decision Mescalero our in Jones, Tribe Apache lying upon v. 145 (1973), Oklahoma the argues that tribal conven- ience store should be held subject state tax laws it because does not a operate “reservation,” on formally designated but on land held in for the Potawatomis. Neither Mesca- trust lero nor other this any of Court has ever the precedent drawn distinction between tribal trust land and reservations that John, In United States v. Oklahoma urges. 437 U. S. (1978), we stated that the test for land determining whether is Indian does not turn land is country upon whether that denominated “trust land” or Rather, “reservation.” we ask the has whether area been set use “‘validly apart the such, of the Indians as the under the superintendence Id., at 648-649; see also United States Government.’” McGowan, 302 U. S.
Mescalero is to the contrary; not that case a ski involved resort outside of by the reservation boundaries the operated Tribe under lease from the Forest 30-year Service. “[ajbsent said that express federal law to the Indi- contrary, beyond ans reservation going boundaries have been generally held state subject nondiscriminatory law otherwise appli- all S., cable to citizens State.” U. at 148-149. in Here, contrast, is property held question Federal Government trust for the benefit of the Potawa- John, tomis. As in we “validly find that this trust land is set and thus as apart” a reservation for tribal qualifies S., 437 U. purposes.
II Oklahoma attacks the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that prevents Tribe it from on the sale of ciga- the collection of state taxes liable for
being ar- Tribe, turn, nonmembers of the Tribe. The rettes to us. It issue is not observes properly this gues before injunction its an prayer issue only presented the challenged could require pay was whether *7 The complaint uncollected taxes. previously assessment the to Tribe authority require Oklahoma’s challenge did not thus, the Tribe ar- the sales tax and prospectively, to collect in issue. put that was never question gues, The Tribe’s that Okla- complaint alleged do not agree. the directly upon to a sales tax authority impose homa lacked held that the Tribe could re- The District Court be Tribe. tax on sales nonmembers. Court to collect the to quired this the decision of the District Court on of reversed Appeals that While neither of these courts need have reached point. in fairly both did. The is subsumed question they question, certiorari, in the and the presented” petition “questions de- authority have briefed it. We have the both parties Terrazas, so. See Vance do v. 444 and cide it proceed (1980). 5 252, 258-259, n. of the doctrine Although applies that not excuse a tribe Potawatomis, doctrine does to the in im- validly to assist the collection of from all obligations Washington Tribes state sales taxes. posed Confederated Reservation, 447 U. Colville ar- S. immunity notwithstanding, Potawatomis’ tribal gues tax to nonmembers authority cigarettes sales of has In Tribe the Tribe’s convenience store. We agree. at and Tribes, Salish Kootenai Moe v. Confederated U. that on an Indian (1976), this Court held Indian retailers to collect all state taxes may required appli- reservation be sales to non-Indians. We determined requiring cable to a minimal to collect these taxes was burden the tribal seller State’s interest assuring payment justified Id., at taxes. 483. “Without concededly lawful these collect the sales retailer simple expedient having purchasers, from non-Indian it is clear that wholesale viola- go virtually tions of the law the latter class will un- Only years Id., checked.” four later we reiterated ruling obliged view, this that tribal sellers are and to collect remit state taxes on sales to nonmembers at Indian smoke- shops supra. Colville, reservation lands. Appeals thought distinguishable
The Court of this case was Washington from Moe and Colville. It observed the State of jurisdiction had asserted over civil causes of action Indian country permitted by as 280, Public Law 280. Pub. L. § Stat. 28 U. S. C. 1360. The court contrasted Colville jurisdiction
to this case, which Oklahoma disclaimed over upon entering ju- Indian lands the Union and did not reassert pursuant risdiction over these lands to Public Law 280. The Appeals Court of concluded that because Oklahoma did not elect to assert under Public Law the Pota- *8 any requirement watomis were immune from of Oklahoma state tax law. depended upon
Neither Moe nor Colville the State’s asser- jurisdiction tion of under Public Law 280. Those cases stand proposition sovereign for the that the doctrine of tribal im- munity prevent requiring does not a State from Indian retail- doing ers business on tribal reservations collect a to state- imposed cigarette tax on their sales to nonmembers of the only Tribe. Colville’s reference to Public Law 280relates to taxing a concessionthat the statute did not furnish a basis for sales to tribe members. 447 S., U. at n. 8. Public Law merely permits 280 a State to assume over “civil country. causes of action” in Indian We have never held independently that Public Law 280 is sufficient to confer au- thority range regulatory on a to extend State the full of its authority, including taxation, over Indians and Indian res- Bryan County, (1976); ervations. v. Itasca 426 373 U. S. (1983); see Rehner, also Rice v. 463 U. 713, 734, n. 18 simply S., 480 Cabazon, 208-210, Thus, U. at and n. 8. it is the Public 280 was essential to conclude that Law incorrect (yet unspoken) Colville. basis for this Court’s decision respect sovereign immu- our with conclusion In view complains nity State, Tribe from suit give as Moe and Colville them a effect, decisions such that, any remedy. right no doubt that There is without pursuing the most efficient the State from bars any persuaded adequate remedy, not lacks we are but agents have held that individual or never alternatives. damages are liable for in actions of a tribe not officers parte Young, brought by Ex S. 123 the State. See U. may today’s course decision, And under States cigarette wholesalers, from the sales tax either collect cigarettes seizing unstamped reservation, off Colville, by assessing supplied supra, 161-162, or who at wholesalers cigarettes City Vending unstamped stores, Muskogee, 2d 122 Comm’n, Inc. Oklahoma Tax F. 1990). (CA10 agreements may into with States also enter satisfactory regime adopt mutually the col- tribes to amended, tax. as of this sort of See Stat. lection similarly § if C. 476. And Oklahoma and other States produce rev- none of alternatives find that these situated may ap- they they entitled, are of course seek which enues legislation Congress. propriate accordingly judgment Appeals of the Court of is part part. reversed in and
Affirmed Stevens, concurring. Justice *9 sovereign immunity upon is an founded
The doctrine of Hall, 410, Nevada v. U. S. fiction. See anachronistic (1979). my opinion federal, In all 414-416 Governments— generally for their be accountable state, and tribal —should illegal that an Indian tribe is immune rule conduct. damages an is, however, consent an for absent its from action part See States v. United of our law. United established Fidelity Guaranty 512-513 Co., 309 U. & States I Nevertheless, am not sure that rule of tribal arising extends to cases from a tribe’s activity territory, conduct of commercial its own outside 1605(a) (“A § foreign cf. 28 U. S. C. shall state not be im- mune from the of courts of the United States or (2) any of the in States case ... in which action is based upon activity a commercial carried on in the United States foreign ...”), applies prospec- a or that it state claims for equitable against tive relief Edelman tribe, Jordan, cf. (1974) (Eleventh 664-665 Amendment bars against monetary suits for relief, States retroactive but not relief). prospective injunctive analyzing In whether the Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian prospectively Tribe can be held taxes liable for on the sale of cigarettes, today acknowledges in the Court effect limits to a sovereign immunity, although explic- tribe’s it does not do so itly. holding Appeals’ The Court affirms the Court of the Oklahoma Tax Commission’s counterclaim properly grounds Tribe was dismissed on of the Tribe’s sov- ereign immunity, proceeds precise then but to address the question raised in the counterclaim—whether the Tribe cigarettes. the future can sales be assessed taxes on its indulges anomaly by reasoning The Court in this prospective liability fairly issue of the Tribe’s “is subsumed” seeking in the Tribe’s main action the tax have commis- enjoined collecting back See ante, sion taxes. my opinion, prospective liability In however, the issue of is properly presented only in the tax commission’s counter- quite possible It is claim. decide that Tribe cannot be past liable for sales taxes which it never collected without going may require on to decide whether the tax commission place. taxes the Tribe to collect state on its sales the first my opinion correctly In reaches the issue Court liability prospective correctly Tribe’s and holds that the State may My purpose collect taxes sales to on tribal non-Indians. writing separately emphasize holding is to that the Court’s *10 argument governmental rejects the en- effect that this completely legal process.
tity immune from Tribe—is —the addressing By claim for the substance of the commission’s injunctive prospective Tribe, relief the Court recognizes today that a tribe’s ac- money necessarily seeking damages does not extend tions seeking equitable relief. actions