The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Montana v. US was the subject of a panel at the University of Montana on Monday.

The case began when the Crow Tribe asserted the right to regulate fishing by non-members. It ended when the court ruled that the tribe's lacked jurisdiction over the activities of non-Indians on fee land within the reservation.

"Indian tribes retain their inherent power to determine tribal membership, to regulate domestic relations among members, and to prescribe rules of inheritance for members," the court noted. "But 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."

The ruling has effectively barred tribes from asserting authority over non-Indians in most situations. However, the court listed two situations in which a tribe can exercise jurisdiction.

"A tribe may regulate, through taxation, licensing, or other means, the activities of nonmembers who enter consensual relationships with the tribe or its members, through commercial dealing, contracts, leases, or other arrangements," the court said, identifying one factor.

"A tribe may also retain inherent power to exercise civil authority over the conduct of non-Indians on fee lands within its reservation when that conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe," the court added.

"Say a prayer that that type of decision never happens again," Urban Bear Don't Walk, a member of the Crow Tribe, said at the panel, The Missoulian reported.

Get the Story:
Montana v. U.S. ruling began modern Indian law, speakers say (The Missoulian 4/12)