Montana v. United States

Background

This dispute involved the Crow Tribe, the United States (acting for the Tribe), and the State of Montana over who owns the bed of the Big Horn River and who can regulate hunting and fishing on the reservation. Treaties of 1851 and 1868 established Crow territory and a reservation. Later allotment laws let many reservation parcels pass into private non‑Indian fee ownership. The Crow Tribal Council passed Resolution No. 74‑05 banning nonmembers from hunting and fishing on the reservation, and the United States sued to quiet title to the riverbed and to affirm tribal authority to regulate hunting and fishing.

Reasoning

The Court first asked whether the treaties clearly conveyed the riverbed to the Tribe. It applied a strong presumption that the United States does not give away riverbeds under navigable waters unless the intention is plainly stated or a compelling public purpose exists. The Court found the Fort Laramie treaties did not clearly grant the riverbed to the Crow and that no public exigency justified departing from the usual presumption. It also held that tribal power to regulate non‑Indians on land owned in fee by nonmembers is limited. Federal trespass law (18 U.S.C. §1165) and the history of allotment showed Congress did not intend broad tribal control over fee lands. Inherent tribal sovereignty covers internal matters and some civil regulation tied to consensual relationships or threats to tribal integrity, but not blanket bans on nonmember hunting on private fee land.

Real world impact

The decision means Montana acquired title to the Big Horn riverbed at statehood and the Tribe cannot broadly prohibit non‑Indian hunting or fishing on privately owned reservation parcels. The Tribe retains authority over tribal and trust lands, and may condition access when it allows nonmembers, but cannot impose criminal jurisdiction over non‑Indians or rely on §1165 to reach fee lands. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these rulings.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Blackmun (joined by two others) disagreed about the riverbed, arguing treaties should be read as Indians would have understood them and that the Crow likely expected river rights; Justice Stevens concurred with the majority’s approach to the presumption rule.