''Atkinson Trading Co. v. Shirley'', 532 U.S. 645 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the Navajo Nation's imposition of a hotel occupancy tax upon nonmembers on non-Indian fee land within its reservation is invalid.

Background

The Atkinson Trading Company, Inc. owns a hotel, restaurant, cafeteria, gallery, curio shop, retail store, and recreational vehicle facility, which are located on non-Indian fee land within the Navajo Nation Reservation. The tribe provided police, fire, and ambulance services for the area, including the hotel complex. In 1992, the Navajo Nation enacted an 8 percent hotel occupancy tax on hotel rooms located within the reservation. Atkinson sought a declaratory judgment that the tax was invalid under ''

Montana v. United States ''Montana v. United States'', 450 U.S. 544 (1981), was a Supreme Court case that addressed two issues: (1) Whether the title of the Big Horn Riverbed rested with the United States, in trust for the Crow Nation or passed to the State of Montana up ...

''. Under ''Montana'', Indian tribes lack civil authority over the conduct of non-Indians on non-Indian land which is located on a reservation. An exception to ''Montana'' is where the non-Indian had entered into a consensual relationship with the tribe. Here, the hotel complex was surrounded by the reservation and received numerous services from the tribe. The District Court granted summary judgment to the tribe and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

Supreme Court

Chief Justice William Rehnquist delivered the opinion of a unanimous court. Rehnquist stated that while Indian tribes have unique attributes of sovereignty over both their members and their territory, they do not have civil authority past those limits, with minor exceptions. The tribe's imposition of a tax upon nonmembers on non-Indian fee land within the reservation was presumptively invalid without establishing that the tax was related to a consensual relationship with Atkinson.

Subsequent developments

The decision appeared to defy established Indian law, and significantly affected the ability of a tribe to build a significant tax base. The ruling significantly affected the Navajo's revenue in a negative manner. Although they still provided services, tax revenue had dropped from $1,167,000 to $881,000 in 2001. The tribe now requires a consent to taxes clause in all contracts., 11 (2009); Sarah Krakoff, ''Healing the West with Taxes: The Navajo Nation and the Enactment of Sovereignty'', in 27, 43 (Patricia Nelson Limerick, Andrew Cowell, & Sharon K. Collinge eds. 2009).

References

External links

* {{caselaw source , case = ''Atkinson Trading Co. v. Shirley'', {{ussc, 532, 645, 2001, el=no , justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/532/645/ , loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep532/usrep532645/usrep532645.pdf , oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/00-454 2001 in United States case law United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court Navajo Nation United States Native American case law