Background & Facts
Rosalind McClanahan was an enrolled member of the Navajo Nation who lived and worked entirely on the Navajo Reservation. Arizona imposed its state income tax on her wages — derived from work performed on the reservation — relying on the broad applicability of state tax law. McClanahan paid the tax under protest and sued for a refund, arguing that Arizona had no authority to tax a tribal member living and working on her own reservation.
The Arizona courts rejected her claim, reasoning that nothing in federal law expressly forbade Arizona's tax. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed.
The Court's Holding
In a unanimous opinion by Justice Marshall, the Court held that Arizona could not impose its income tax on a tribal member living and working on the Navajo Reservation. Crucially, the Court reframed the analysis: instead of asking whether federal law expressly forbade state authority, the Court held that the question was whether Congress had expressly authorized state authority. The default rule is exclusion of state law from Indian Country.
Key Holding — The McClanahan Default Rule:
State law does NOT apply in Indian Country unless Congress has expressly provided that it shall. The "backdrop" of all federal Indian law analysis is tribal sovereignty and the federal trust relationship. The burden is on the state to prove congressional authorization — not on the tribe to find a federal prohibition. Ambiguities resolve in favor of the tribe.
Key Language
"The question is generally not one of whether the state action infringed on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them. Rather, it is whether the state action is preempted by federal law."
"The Indian sovereignty doctrine is relevant, then, not because it provides a definitive resolution of the issues in this suit, but because it provides a backdrop against which the applicable treaties and federal statutes must be read."
"Congress has, since the creation of the Navajo Reservation nearly a century ago, left the Navajos largely free to run the reservation and its affairs without state control."
How McClanahan Reverses California's Burden
McClanahan is the case that reverses the burden of proof in every state-jurisdiction dispute. California cannot show up and demand that the tribe identify some federal statute forbidding state action. The default rule is that state law does NOT apply in Indian Country. California must affirmatively prove that Congress expressly authorized each specific state action it takes.
For ATN's litigation strategy:
- 1. Every California enforcement action against ATN is presumptively invalid until California proves congressional authorization.
- 2. P.L. 280's grants must be read narrowly — Congress's authorization must be specific to the action being taken.
- 3. Where P.L. 280 is silent on consent, McClanahan + the Indian canon resolves the silence in favor of the tribe.
- 4. The "backdrop" of tribal sovereignty applies in EVERY case — even cases where Congress has spoken — because that backdrop colors how the statute is interpreted.
- 5. McClanahan and Bryan together require P.L. 280 to be read as narrowly as possible at every turn.
Related Cases
- Williams v. Lee (1959) — Foundational infringement test
- Bryan v. Itasca County (1976) — Companion narrowing of P.L. 280 itself
- Worcester v. Georgia (1832) — The original "backdrop" Marshall referenced
- McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) — Modern textualist application of the express-authorization rule