Matches in DBpedia 2014 for { ?s ?p Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), was a Supreme Court case that addressed the Crow Nation's ability to regulate hunting and fishing on tribal lands by a non-tribal member. The case considered several important issues concerning tribes' treaty rights and sovereign governing authority on Indian reservations. The original dispute was over access to fishing on the Bighorn River within the exterior boundaries of the Crow Indian Reservation in Montana. The Court would eventually rule that the “exercise of tribal power beyond what is necessary to protect tribal self-government or to control internal relations is inconsistent with the dependent status of the tribes, and so cannot survive without express congressional delegation.”A prior case, Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, played a significant role in the decision. The lower courts in that case had found that "preserving law and order within tribal lands was an indispensable attribute that had been neither surrendered through treaty nor removed by Congress under its plenary power." Justice Anthony Kennedy, then sitting on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, had dissented from that finding, arguing that "Congress did not intend for tribes to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians." Although Oliphant addressed tribal authority regarding criminal matters, the case was invoked in Montana v. United States since it concerns tribal authority—criminal, civil, and regulatory—regarding non-members.The Supreme Court in Montana v. United States set a precedent which resulted in a wave of litigation challenging not only the exercise of tribal court authority over non-members, but the very existence of that authority. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Crow Nation could regulate hunting and fishing on tribal lands, and had jurisdiction over “conduct which threatens or has some direct effect” upon the tribe’s "political integrity, economic security, and health or welfare," but a seemingly simple trial turned into a famous court case, with ongoing repercussions.. }
Showing items 1 to 1 of
1
with 100 items per page.
- Montana_v._United_States abstract "Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), was a Supreme Court case that addressed the Crow Nation's ability to regulate hunting and fishing on tribal lands by a non-tribal member. The case considered several important issues concerning tribes' treaty rights and sovereign governing authority on Indian reservations. The original dispute was over access to fishing on the Bighorn River within the exterior boundaries of the Crow Indian Reservation in Montana. The Court would eventually rule that the “exercise of tribal power beyond what is necessary to protect tribal self-government or to control internal relations is inconsistent with the dependent status of the tribes, and so cannot survive without express congressional delegation.”A prior case, Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, played a significant role in the decision. The lower courts in that case had found that "preserving law and order within tribal lands was an indispensable attribute that had been neither surrendered through treaty nor removed by Congress under its plenary power." Justice Anthony Kennedy, then sitting on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, had dissented from that finding, arguing that "Congress did not intend for tribes to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians." Although Oliphant addressed tribal authority regarding criminal matters, the case was invoked in Montana v. United States since it concerns tribal authority—criminal, civil, and regulatory—regarding non-members.The Supreme Court in Montana v. United States set a precedent which resulted in a wave of litigation challenging not only the exercise of tribal court authority over non-members, but the very existence of that authority. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Crow Nation could regulate hunting and fishing on tribal lands, and had jurisdiction over “conduct which threatens or has some direct effect” upon the tribe’s "political integrity, economic security, and health or welfare," but a seemingly simple trial turned into a famous court case, with ongoing repercussions.".