Bailess, County Treasurer, et al. v. Paukune

The Court ruled, in a case about whether Texas could control and regulate gambling on Native American reservations, that the Restoration Act bans only gaming activities also banned by the state of Texas.· AI-written

The Court held that the land Congress reserved for the Muscogee Nation in the 19th century was never disestablished and is Indian country under the Major Crimes Act, so Oklahoma could not prosecute American Indians for crimes committed there.· AI-written

The Court held that Wyoming's statehood did not void the Crow Tribe's right to hunt on "unoccupied lands of the United States" under an 1868 treaty, and that the Bighorn National Forest did not automatically become "occupied" when the forest was created.

The Court held that the Yakama Nation Treaty of 1855 preempts the state law which the State purported to be able to tax fuel purchased by a tribal corporation for sale to tribal members.

The court held that Yakima County v. Yakima Nation did not address the scope of tribal sovereign immunity for in rem lawsuits.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled 8–0 that tribal sovereign immunity does not apply in a suit against a tribal employee in his individual capacity, and an indemnification provision cannot extend tribal sovereign immunity to cases in which it would otherwise not apply.

The Court held that Congress's 1882 Act did not diminish the Omaha Indian Reservation.

In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the State of Michigan's suit against Bay Mills is barred by tribal immunity.

The Supreme Court of the United States held that the federal government could not take land into trust that was acquired by the Narragansett Tribe in the late 20th century, as it was not federally recognized until 1983.

The Supreme Court of the United States held that a state's non-discriminatory fuel tax imposed on off-reservation distributors does not pose an affront to a tribe's sovereignty.

The Supreme Court of the United States held that repurchase of traditional tribal lands did not restore tribal sovereignty to that land.

The Court held that a contract with the Federal Government to reimburse the tribe for health care costs was binding, despite the failure of Congress to appropriate funds for those costs.

In a dispute over ownership of lands submerged under Lake Coeur d'Alene and the St. Joe River, the Court held that the United States, not Idaho, held title, in trust for the Coeur d'Alene Tribe as part of its reservation.· AI-written

The Court held that the tribe waived its sovereign immunity when it agreed to a contract containing an arbitration agreement.

The Supreme Court of the United States held that a Native Nation is entitled to sovereign immunity from contract lawsuits, whether made on or off reservation, or involving governmental or commercial activities.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari on appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had ruled in the tribe's favor, saying they occupied Indian Country.

In a case about tribal courts' authority over civil disputes between nonmembers on public highways in Indian Country, the Court held that, absent Congressional authorization, tribal courts could not adjudicate such matters on state-maintained highways crossing reservation land.· AI-written

The Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress specifically abrogated treaty rights with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe as to hunting and fishing rights on reservation lands that were acquired for a reservoir.

The Court held that an Indian tribe was not subject to state sales taxes on sales made to tribal members but was liable for state taxes on sales to non-tribal members.· AI-written

The Court decided states may impose taxes on non-tribal commercial activity that takes place on tribal land.

The Supreme Court's decision effectively overturned the existing laws restricting gaming/gambling on U.S. Indian reservations.

In a land claim brought by a terminated tribe, the Court held that federal policy did not preclude applying a state statute of limitations to the claim, and it remanded to the Fourth Circuit to decide whether South Carolina's statute applied.· AI-written

The Court held that States cannot tax tribes without express Congressional approval.

The Court decided that opening up reservation lands for settlement by non-Indians does not constitute the intent to diminish reservation boundaries.

The Court held California may properly require respondent to obtain a state license in order to sell liquor for off-premises consumption.

The Court held that Montana, not the United States in trust for the Crow Tribe, held title to the Big Horn Riverbed under the Equal Footing Doctrine, and that the Tribe could not regulate nonmember hunting and fishing on nonmember-owned fee-simple land within its reservation.· AI-written

The Supreme Court of the United States holding that Arizona's taxes that were assessed against a non-Indian contractor that was working exclusively for an Indian tribe on that tribe's reservation were preempted by federal law.

The Court held that a taxpayer who wants to question Internal Revenue Service agents about their motives for issuing a summons may do so if they can point to "specific facts or circumstances plausibly raising an inference of bad faith."

In a land dispute, the Court held that 25 U.S.C. § 194 applied only to individuals and not to a state, that federal law governed the tribe's right to possession, and that state law determined how that applied to the natural movement of a river's boundaries.· AI-written

The Supreme Court of the United States held that lands designated as a reservation in Mississippi are "Indian country" as defined by statute, although the reservation was established nearly a century after Indian removal and related treaties.

The Court held that a state tax on personal property owned by tribe members inside reservations and a state sales tax on trade between two tribe members were preempted by the General Allotment Act.

The Court held that treaties and laws must be construed in favor of Native Americans, that the Supremacy Clause barred applying state game laws to the tribe, and that Congress showed no intent to subject the tribe to state hunting jurisdiction.· AI-written

The Court held that the land that had been the Klamath River Reservation and was incorporated into the Hoopa Valley Reservation in 1891 remained Indian country within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §1151 despite the Act of June 17, 1892.

The Supreme Court of the United States holding that Arizona has no jurisdiction to impose a tax on the income of Navajo Indians residing on the Navajo Reservation if their income is wholly derived from reservation sources.

The Supreme Court of the United States held that a state could tax tribal, off-reservation business activities but could not impose a tax on tribal land, which was exempt from all forms of property taxes.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Menominee Indian Tribe kept their historical hunting and fishing rights even after the federal government ceased to recognize the tribe.

The Court held that the comprehensive federal regulatory regime for trade on Indian reservations preempted a state income tax on that trade.

The Court held that Washington State lacked jurisdiction to try an Indian for a crime committed within the Colville Indian Reservation's boundaries, even on land now owned by a non-Indian.· AI-written

The Supreme Court of the United States held that the State of Arizona does not have jurisdiction to try a civil case between a non-Indian doing business on a reservation with tribal members who reside on the reservation, the proper forum for such cases being the tribal court.