Summary

Portrait of Harry Blackmun Harry Blackmun County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Indian Nation…

It is little wonder that, as Congress moved toward repudiating the allotment system in 1934, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs informed Congress:
"It is difficult to imagine any other system which with equal effectiveness would pauperize the Indian while impoverishing him, and sicken and kill his soul while pauperizing him, and cast him in so ruined a condition into the final status of a nonward dependent upon the States and counties."
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Harry Blackmun Harry Blackmun County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Indian Nation…

In my judgment, Congress' choice not to effect a taking of this magnitude does not reflect an intent to continue other policies contributing to the loss of Indian lands. If anything, Congress' intent is to be gauged not by negative implication from what it failed to do, but from provisions in the Act that stop further allotment, that freeze in trust already allotted-but-not-yet-patented land, and that affirmatively authorize repurchases of Indian lands to rebuild the tribal land base.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Harry Blackmun Harry Blackmun County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Indian Nation…

I have wandered the maze of Indian statutes and case law tracing back 100 years. Unlike the Court, however, I am unable to find an "unmistakably clear" intent of Congress to allow the States to tax Indian-owned fee-patented lands. Accordingly, while I concur with the majority's conclusion that Yakima County may not impose excise taxes, I dissent from their conclusion that the county may impose ad valorem taxes on Indian-owned fee-patented lands.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature