The Chickamauga Nation provides formal Notice to the Public: We are resuming the Rights of Taxation and Tax Exemption within Jurisdiction for the protection, healthcare, education, and well-being of The Chickamauga Nation.
In Accordance with Article 6 Sections 2 and 3, the 1809 Land Trade and Treaty Boundary Jurisdiction established by 7 Stat 156, 7 Stat 195, the Governing Document of The Chickamauga Nation, and numerous Supreme Court Rulings, The Chickamauga Nation provides formal Notice to the Public: We are resuming the Rights of Taxation and Tax Exemption within Jurisdiction for the protection, healthcare, education, and well-being of The Chickamauga Nation.
In accordance with McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) the twenty-two (22) treaties signed with the United States government between 1785 and 1835 the Reservations and jurisdiction established within those Treaties was never “Legislatively Dis-Established” by Congress. Therefore as the sole remaining Tribal Government who signed those treaties and who was never terminated by Congress, The Chickamauga Nation retains full jurisdictional authority over those Reservations and the retained rights within said Reservations.
Supreme Court Cases Involving Native Americans and Taxation
McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020): held that the domain reserved for the Muscogee Nation by Congress in the 19th century has never been disestablished and constitutes Indian country for the purposes of the Major Crimes Act, meaning that the state of Oklahoma has no right to prosecute American Indians for crimes allegedly committed therein. As a result, almost the entirety of the eastern half of what is now the state of Oklahoma remains Indian country, meaning that criminal prosecutions of Native Americans for offenses therein falls outside the jurisdiction of Oklahoma’s court system. In these cases, jurisdiction properly vests within the Indigenous judicial systems and the federal district courts under the Major Crimes Act.
McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n (1973): States cannot tax reservation Indians without Congressional consent.
Bryan v. Itasca County, Minnesota (1976): Public Law 280 did not give states general taxing authority in Indian Country.
Montana v. United States (1981): Established the “Montana exceptions” for tribal authority over non-Indians.
Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe (1982): Affirmed tribal tax authority.
Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Sac & Fox Nation (1993): States cannot impose income or vehicle taxes on tribal members in Indian Country without clear Congressional authorization.
Atkinson Trading Co. v. Shirley (2001): A tribe could not impose a hotel tax on non-tribal members in a specific situation where “Montana exceptions” didn’t apply.
Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe (2024): The Indian Health Service must reimburse tribes for certain administrative costs.
United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians of the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming (1938): Court held that mineral rights on a reservation belonged to the tribe, not the federal government.
Idaho v. United States (2001): Court held that the United States, not the state of Idaho, held title to lands submerged under Lake Coeur d’Alene and the St. Joe River, and that the land was held in trust for the Coeur d’Alene Tribe as part of its reservation, and in recognition of the importance of traditional tribal uses of these areas for basic food and other needs.
Oklahoma Tax Commission v. United States (1943): held that Indian land that Congress has exempted from direct taxation by a state is also exempt from state estate taxes
Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones (1973): held that a state could tax tribal, off-reservation business activities but could not impose a tax on tribal land, which was exempt from all forms of property taxes
McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission (1973): held that Arizona has no jurisdiction to impose a tax on the income of Navajo Indians residing on the Navajo Reservation if their income is wholly derived from reservation sources
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker (1980): held that Arizona’s taxes that were assessed against a non-Indian contractor that was working exclusively for an Indian tribe on that tribe’s reservation were preempted by federal law
Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc. v. Bureau of Revenue of New Mexico (1982): held that the state was not authorized to impose taxes on a construction company building a school on a Native American (Indian) reservation
New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe (1983): held that the application of New Mexico’s laws to on-reservation hunting and fishing by nonmembers of the Tribe is preempted by the operation of federal law
Okla. Tax Commission v. Citizen Band, Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma (1991): held that the tribe was not subject to state sales taxes on sales made to tribal members, but that they were liable for taxes on sales to non-tribal members
Washington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc. (2019): held that the Yakama Nation Treaty of 1855 preempts the state law which the State purported to be able to tax fuel purchased by a tribal corporation for sale to tribal members
Talton v. Mayes, (1896): decided that the individual rights protections, which limit federal, and later, state governments, do not apply to tribal government. It reaffirmed earlier decisions, such as the 1831 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia case, that gave Indian tribes the status of “domestic dependent nations,” the sovereignty of which is independent of the federal government
Williams v. Lee (1959): held that the State of Arizona does not have jurisdiction to try a civil case between a non-Indian doing business on a reservation with tribal members who reside on the reservation, the proper forum for such cases being the tribal court
Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States (1968): ruled that the Menominee Indian Tribe kept their historical hunting and fishing rights even after the federal government ceased to recognize the tribe.
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (1978): sustained a law passed by the governing body of the Santa Clara Pueblo that explicitly discriminated on the basis of sex. In so doing, the Court advanced a theory of tribal sovereignty that weighed the interests of tribes sufficient to justify a law that, had it been passed by a state legislature or Congress, would have almost certainly been struck down as a violation of equal protection.
Duro v. Reina (1990): concluded that Indian tribes could not prosecute Indians who were members of other tribes for crimes committed by those nonmember Indians on their reservations. The decision was not well received by the tribes, because it defanged their criminal codes by depriving them of the power to enforce them against anyone except their own members. In response, Congress amended a section of the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1301, to include the power to “exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians” as one of the powers of self-government
C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band, Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma (2001): held that the tribe waived its sovereign immunity when it agreed to a contract containing an arbitration agreement
Dollar General Corp. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (2016): Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the decision of the district court. The opinion of the Court, finding that the facts in the case met the first exception noted in Montana, allowing the tribal court to exercise jurisdiction of Dollar General.
United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe (2003): held in a 5–4 decision that when the federal government used land or property held in trust for an Indian tribe, it had the duty to maintain that land or property and was liable for any damages for a breach of that duty
