Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U.S. 163 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case that decided states may impose taxes on non-tribal commercial activity that takes place on tribal land.[1][2]
| Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 30, 1988 Decided April 25, 1989 | |
| Full case name | Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico |
| Citations | 490 U.S. 163 (more) 109 S. Ct. 1698; 104 L. Ed. 2d 209 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Cotton Petroleum v. State, 106 N.M. 517, 745 P.2d 1170 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987) |
| Holding | |
| There is no "proportionality requirement" for the amount collected from tribes to be equitable to the services rendered by the government. Further, current case law allows states can impose non-discriminatory taxes on non-Tribal entities that do business with tribes, but Congress may offer immunity if it chooses. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stevens, joined by Rehnquist, White, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy |
| Dissent | Blackmun, joined by Brennan, Marshall |
Background
editThe case followed the earlier Supreme Court ruling Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe (1982), which approved of the Jicarilla Apache charging a severance tax for oil extraction on tribal land.
Accordingly, Cotton Petroleum, a non-Indian corporation, extracted oil and agreed to pay the tribe a 6% severance tax.[3] However, the State of New Mexico collected an additional 8% severance tax, which it levied on all oil producers in the state. Cotton paid the state tax in protest, filed the lawsuit, and asserted that the state tax was preempted by federal law.
Decision
editThe Court applied Bracker balancing by weighing state, tribal, and federal interests. Because the state provided Cotton $89,384 in services, the Court found sufficient state interest to justify the state tax.[4][5] The amount collected in taxes, $2,293,953, far exceeded the value of the state services, but the Court held there was no "proportionality requirement."[4] The Court further explained that current case law allows states to impose non-discriminatory taxes on non-tribal entities that do business with tribes and noted that Congress may offer immunity if it chooses.[6]
References
edit- ^ Gluck, Daniel (1990). "A Tale of Two Taxes—Preemption on the Reservation: Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico". The Tax Lawyer. 43 (2): 359–373. JSTOR 20771248.
- ^ Haddock, David. "To Tax Tribes or Not To Tax Tribes". Lewis & Clark Law Review. 12 (4): 971–990.
- ^ Carpenter, Charley (1990). "Preempting Indian Preemption: Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico". Catholic University Law Review. 39 (2): 639–671.
- ^ a b Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U.S. 163, 185 (1989)
- ^ Erhardt, Erin (2014). "States Versus Tribes: The Problem of Multiple Taxation of Non-Indian Oil and Gas Leases on Indian Reservations". American Indian Law Review. 38 (2): 533–566.
- ^ 490 U.S. at 175
External links
edit- Text of Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U.S. 163 (1989) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)