jan 1, 1981 - Montana v. U.S.

Description:

Matthew Gomez
Montana v. United States
No. 79-1128
Case presented: December 3, 1980
Decided: March 24, 1981

Facts:
There are two treaties concerning this case. The First Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1851 and the second one in 1868. Both treaties have to do with tribal regulations and in this case the Crow Tribe. The reservations that were granted to the Crow tribe had a market for wildlife game. The Crow Tribe wanted to prohibit hunting and or fishing within the reservations confines that were granted to them in the First Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1861. However, Montana wanted to continue to exercise its authority by regulating hunting and fishing even for non-natives.

Issues:
When the Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1861. Tribes were granted lands and those lands were supposed to be their own territory. However, the issues in this case are about who gets to regulate wildlife game within the reservation. The Crow Tribe wanted to deny any hunting licenses to anyone who was not a member of the Tribe. When the state on Montana continued to allow hunting and fishing by non-tribe members that’s when the case became presented. The Crow Tribe argued that by signing the first treaty they didn’t sign away who can come and go as they please. So, a second treaty was drafted, and this treaty was called, you guessed it, The Second Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1868. The Treaty of 1868 was the treaty to actually establish the Crow Tribe and gave them land which the Big Horn River runs through and in this treaty, it says that no non-natives unless government agents can trespass, and they cannot live or not even walk through the Crows Tribe reservation even if it’s just an alternate route.

Results:
There is a term in constitutional law called navigable waters and what that does is it gives sole custody to the federal government of navigable waters. It just so happened the Crow Tribe reservation was in fact right now the river bed of navigable waters called The Big Horn River. The Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1861 didn’t clearly state this one major essential that navigable rivers are held in trust for the states and not for the tribes. So, the language used in the 1861 treaty didn’t actually state that the Indians could regulate the land because the land wasn’t really theirs.
Therefore, because the federal government holds navigable waters in trust for future states the lands granted to them under the first and second treaty are in trust for the tribes by the United States of America and therefor, have no right to regulate any hunting or fishing by non-tribe members. But, the Crow Tribe can still regulate hunting and fishing but only on land that they own the regulation of hunting and fishing cannot extend to tribes that pay fees for their lands.

Analysis:
The argument that the Crow Tribe argued in December 3, 1981 that they wanted to control regulation of non-natives on their reservations does not support the tribe’s inherent sovereignty. More specifically tribes have no more sovereignty when it comes down non-native and natives. Therefore, because tribes can no longer control internal relations with respect to their own self-government. In lamest terms tribes wouldn’t be tribes if it wasn’t for the United States Congress or express congressional delegation.

Conclusion:
Because there is no evidence that non-native fisher and or hunter men pose a direct threat to the political and economic stability and or security of the native Indians then the decision limited Indian law to basic Indian interactions because the court said that The Crow Tribe didn’t have any inherent authority to prohibit nonmembers.


Court Levels in order:
1. District Court denied relief.
2. Court of Appeals reversed it.
3. United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded Montana v. United States.

Opinions from the bench:

• STEWART,J., BURGER, C.J., WHITE, POWELL, REHNQUIST and STEVENS, JJ., all filed concurring opinion.

• MARSHALL, JJ., MARSHALL, JJ., both filed dissenting.



Resources:
https://www.justice.gov/enrd/montana-v-us
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/450/544/
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/450/544.html

Added to timeline:

Date: