Tonasket v. Washington
Headline: State taxation dispute involving Native American tribes: Court vacates Washington high court’s judgment and sends the case back for reconsideration under new 1972 state law sections and a recent tax ruling.
Holding: The Court vacated the Washington Supreme Court’s judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of specific 1972 Washington law sections and the Court’s decision in McClanahan.
- Requires Washington’s highest court to reexamine its ruling under new 1972 state law sections.
- Makes the decision nonfinal and dependent on how the state court applies McClanahan.
- Brings Native American groups and the U.S. government briefs into the reconsideration.
Summary
Background
This case is an appeal from the Supreme Court of Washington brought by an individual named Tonasket against the State of Washington. The record shows briefs and arguments from the State’s Attorney General and from tribes and national Native American organizations acting as friends of the court. The dispute prompted many amici briefs, including one filed by the United States urging reversal and one by the Multistate Tax Commission urging affirmance.
Reasoning
The central question the Court addressed was whether the Washington high court’s decision must be reconsidered in light of newly enacted state law provisions and the Court’s recent ruling in McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission. Without a signed opinion for the Court, the Justices issued a per curiam order: they vacated the Washington court’s judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration specifically under §§ 6 and 7 of chapter 157 of the 1972 Extraordinary Session Laws of Washington and in light of McClanahan.
Real world impact
The ruling does not decide the underlying controversy on the merits. Instead, it sends the case back to the Washington Supreme Court to reevaluate its decision under the referenced state law sections and the Supreme Court’s McClanahan decision. The involvement of tribal organizations, the National Congress of American Indians, and the United States shows broader interest, but the per curiam order leaves the final outcome to the state court’s renewed consideration.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?