Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation

1979-02-26

Headline: Ruling lets Washington keep a 'checkerboard' system of partial state jurisdiction on the Yakima Reservation, reversing the appeals court and allowing some state laws while tribes retain control on trust lands.

Holding: The Court held that Washington satisfied Public Law 280’s procedural requirements, Public Law 280 allows partial state jurisdiction conditioned on tribal consent, and Chapter 36’s “checkerboard” scheme does not violate equal protection.

Real World Impact:

Allows states to use partial 'checkerboard' jurisdiction on reservations.
Leaves tribes able to request full state jurisdiction when they choose.
Creates extra complexity for law enforcement and courts on reservations.

Topics: tribal sovereignty, state jurisdiction on reservations, reservation law, Public Law 280, equal protection

Summary

Background

The dispute was between the State of Washington and the Yakima Indian Nation (a Native American tribe) over a 1963 Washington law (Chapter 36). That law extended state civil and criminal authority in some situations on reservation land but withheld most authority on trust or restricted lands unless the tribe requested it. The Yakima Nation sued, arguing the state had not met federal procedural rules, that federal law did not allow only partial jurisdiction, and that the statute violated equal protection.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court examined three questions. First, the Court held Washington did not have to put the matter to a statewide popular constitutional amendment because Congress’ 1953 law (Public Law 280) and its §6 allow state legislative action where state law so permits. Second, the Court read the federal statute to permit option states to assume jurisdiction “in such manner” as they choose, so a state may condition full jurisdiction on tribal consent and can operate partial geographic or subject-matter coverage. Third, the Court rejected the lower court’s equal protection finding: the “checkerboard” distinction based on land title and subject matter was found rationally related to the State’s interest in protecting non-Indian residents while leaving space for tribal self-government.

Real world impact

The decision upholds Washington’s 1963 law and reverses the Ninth Circuit. Practically, states may design partial jurisdiction schemes under Pub. L. 280; tribes on such reservations can still request full state coverage; and law enforcement and courts must operate under mixed authority depending on land status and subject matter. The Court noted later Congressional amendments but relied on the 1953 statute for its ruling.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent warned that ambiguities in the 1953 law should be read in the tribes’ favor and argued the statute did not clearly authorize piecemeal jurisdiction, so the result should have favored the Yakima Nation.