Washington State Dept. of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc.
Headline: Court blocks Washington fuel tax on Yakama trucking company, ruling treaty protects tribal travel with goods and prevents state taxation of goods carried to the reservation.
Holding: The Court rules that the Yakama treaty reserves a right to travel with goods, so Washington's fuel tax on fuel carried to the reservation is pre-empted and cannot be applied to Cougar Den.
- Stops states from taxing tribal goods transported to reservations by highway.
- Protects tribal businesses like Cougar Den from state fuel taxes while traveling.
- Leaves states able to enforce health, safety, and conservation regulations.
Summary
Background
The dispute involves the Yakama Nation, a Yakama corporation called Cougar Den that trucks fuel into Washington, and the State of Washington, which applies a per-gallon fuel tax on imported motor fuel. Cougar Den argued the 1855 treaty reserved the Yakamas "the right, in common with citizens of the United States, to travel upon all public highways," and that this reservation protects travel with goods for trade from state taxation. Lower courts considered historical evidence and earlier cases interpreting the same treaty language about fishing rights.
Reasoning
The Court asked whether the fuel tax, as applied to fuel carried on public highways by tribal members, impermissibly burdens the treaty right. It relied on three linked points: past precedents require interpreting the treaty as the Yakamas understood it in 1855; the historical record shows the Yakamas and U.S. negotiators understood the treaty to protect traveling with goods for trade; and a tax on goods carried to market functions like a fee that interferes with the reserved right. Applying those reasons, the Court concluded the Washington fuel tax is pre-empted as applied to Cougar Den and affirmed the Washington Supreme Court’s judgment. A concurring opinion emphasized the same historical interpretation.
Real world impact
The ruling protects tribal members and tribal businesses transporting goods to reservation markets from this kind of state tax on highway transport. It may limit States’ ability to collect similar importation taxes on tribal goods while preserving States’ authority to impose nondiscriminatory regulations needed for conservation, health, or safety. The opinion acknowledges potential practical questions about other taxes and regulations and recognizes those concerns were raised in dissents.
Dissents or concurrances
A dissent argued the tax targets possession of fuel, not travel, and is a nondiscriminatory state tax the treaty does not bar; another dissent argued "in common with" means equal treatment, not exemption. Justice Gorsuch concurred with the judgment based on the treaty’s historical meaning.
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?