Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981)
Montana v. United States is a landmark Supreme Court case that addressed the extent to which Native American tribes can exercise regulatory authority over non-tribal members, particularly on lands owned by non-members within the reservation.
Can a Native American tribe regulate the activities of non-members on land within its reservation but owned in fee by non-members?
A tribe's civil regulatory authority over non-members extends to non-member conduct on fee lands within its reservation only when it is necessary to protect tribal self-government or to control internal relations. Otherwise, its jurisdiction is limited.
The Supreme Court held that the Crow Tribe did not have the authority to regulate hunting and fishing by non-members on non-tribal land within the reservation except in circumstances where such regulation is necessary to protect tribal self-government or control internal relations.
The decision is significant because it outlines a clear two-exception framework for when tribes can exercise jurisdiction over non-members on non-tribal land within reservations. It is a cornerstone case in the field of federal Indian law that guides both legal scholarship and practice related to tribal governance. This case is critical for law students as it provides insights into the intersection of tribal sovereignty and federal jurisdiction, shaping future dialogue on the autonomy and limits of tribal powers.