Summary

Byron White Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation… (1989)

Although it is inconceivable that Congress would have intended that the sale of a few lots would divest the Tribe of the power to determine the character of the tribal community, it is equally improbable that Congress envisioned that the Tribe would retain its interest in regulating the use of vast ranges of land sold in fee to nonmembers who lack any voice in setting tribal policy.
Source: Wikisource

Byron White Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation… (1989)

Nonmembers who lawfully enter tribal lands remain subject to the tribe's power to exclude them. This power necessarily includes the lesser power to place conditions on entry, on continued presence, or on reservation conduct. . . . When a tribe grants a non-Indian the right to be on Indian land, the tribe agrees not to exercise its ultimate power to oust the non-Indian as long as the non-Indian complies with the initial conditions of entry.
Source: Wikisource

Byron White Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation… (1989)

Given that a large percentage of the land in the open area is owned in fee by nonmembers-and that an additional portion is leased to nonmembers-even if the Tribe had exercised its power to exclude nonmembers from trust land, it would have been unable thereby to establish the essential character of the region. In such circumstances, allowing a nonmember to use his or her land in a manner that might not be approved by the tribal council does not upset an otherwise coherent scheme of land use.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature