Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation

The reservation lands of the Yakima Indian Nation (the tribe) (plaintiff) were divided into two areas: one closed to the general public and another open to the general public. Both areas contained property held in fee by nonmembers of the tribe, though ownership of land by nonmembers and non-Indians was significantly higher in the open area. The tribe and the county in which the lands were situated enacted conflicting zoning ordinances. Philip Brendale (defendant), who was part Indian but not a member of the tribe, owned a 160-acre tract in the closed area. Brendale sought to develop summer cabins on his property, which would have been permitted by the county zoning designation but not by the tribal zoning designation. Stanley Wilkinson (defendant), a non-Indian, owned a 40-acre tract in the open area. Wilkinson sought to subdivide his property into smaller lots, which would have been permitted by the county zoning designation but not by the tribal zoning designation. The planning department approved both developments. The tribe brought suit to subject the Brendale and Wilkinson properties to the authority of the tribal zoning ordinance. The tribe argued that this authority derived from both the original treaty that established the reservation and the tribe’s inherent sovereignty. The federal district court upheld the tribe’s authority over Brendale’s property but not over Wilkinson’s property. The federal court of appeals affirmed with respect to Brendale but reversed with respect to Wilkinson and remanded for a new balancing of tribal and county interests. Brendale, Wilkinson, and Yakima County petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari, which was granted.