Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Washington v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation

United States Supreme Court
447 U.S. 134 (1980)


Facts

The State of Washington (defendant) imposed a tax on the sale of cigarettes. The tax did not apply to cigarettes sold by Indians on a reservation to other members of the tribe. Several Indian tribes (Tribes) (plaintiffs) regularly sold cigarettes on reservation to non-Indians, charging only a tribal tax. Washington demanded that the Tribes collect taxes due the state. When the Tribes refused to collect the tax, Washington intercepted and confiscated shipments of cigarettes en route to the reservation. The Tribes sued, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against imposition of the tax and seizure of the cigarettes. The Tribes claimed that Washington’s cigarette tax was preempted by federal law and inconsistent with tribal self-governance (the taxes would cause the Tribes to lose a significant, competitive, economic advantage). The district court entered judgment for the Tribes, holding that state taxation of the cigarettes on reservation was preempted by the tribal taxing ordinance and improperly interfered with tribal self-governance. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence/Dissent (Stewart, J.)

The concurrence/dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the judge’s concurrence in part and dissent in part.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Rehnquist, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Brennan, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 217,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.