Facebook Twitter Email
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2002

A Washington county does not have the right to tax land owned by the Quinault Nation, a federal appeals court ruled last Friday.

In a unanimous opinion, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a "unique taxation scheme" imposed on the tribe. Reversing a federal court's decision, a three-judge panel said Gray Harbor County lacked Congressional authority for its $58,000 tax bill.

"It is a well established principle of Indian law that state and local governments lack the power to tax reservation Indians or their land absent cession of jurisdiction or other federal statutes permitting it," Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote for the majority.

The decision applies to about 4,500 acres of forest land the Quinault Nation purchased in 1998. Two years later, the tribe asked the Department of Interior to take the property into trust.

Gray Harbor County did not oppose the acquisition. But under Washington state law, it sought to impose a special tax that applies only when land is transferred into non-taxable status.

The tribe paid the bill but protested by filing suit in federal court. The first round was lost when U.S. District Judge Thomas S. Zilly sided with the county.

On appeal, the 9th Circuit took a closer look at the tax itself and sought to draw a distinction between a tax based on value of the land and a tax based on other aspects.

According to Supreme Court precedent in 1992's County of Yakima v. Yakama Nation, land value taxes can be imposed on tribes. The decision cites a provision in the General Allotment Act of 1887, the law which broke up the Indian land base.

But otherwise, taxes on Indian land are not permitted, the appeals court noted. Gray Harbor's scheme is based on a number of factors, not just the value of the property, and resembles an unlawful excise tax, McKeown wrote in the decision.

"Although the question is simple, the answer is not so straight-forward," McKeown wrote. "Indeed, the very ambiguity of this tax scheme leads us to conclude that it does not fall within an 'unmistakably clear' congressional authorization."

Congress repudiated the allotment policy with the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. But by that time, 90 million acres was lost to non-Indians.

Since then, 9 million has been restored as tribes have repurchased land. In the Quinault's Nation case, the tribe was restoring land located within the boundaries of its reservation.

Get the Decision:
QUINAULT INDIAN NATION v. GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, No. 01-35219 (9th Cir. November 08, 2002)

Relevant Documents:
Department of Interior Land-into-trust Policy (PDF 14k)

Relevant Links:
Title 25 CFR Part 151 - http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_01/25cfr151_01.html
Section 20, IGRA - http://www.nigc.gov/acquiredlands1.htm
Land into Trust, National Congress of American Indians - http://www.ncai.org/main/pages/issues/
governance/land_into_trust.asp

Related Stories:
BIA batting '100 percent' on land (11/4)
Land still in limbo after decade-long fight (10/16)
Focus on trust reform leaves estate on sideline (03/12)
McCaleb reopens controversial gaming debate (1/2)
McCaleb revokes trust land standards (11/9)
Land regulations targeted for withdrawal (8/13)
Supreme Court turns down Pequot land case (5/1)
Wisconsin Governor vetoes Ojibwe casino (5/15)
Norton delays land-into-trust regulations (4/16)
BIA approves off-reservation Ojibwe casino (2/21)