Thus, we must turn to the question whether this fuel tax, falling as it does upon members of the Tribe who travel on the public highways, violates the treaty.
III
A
In our view, the State of Washington's application of the fuel tax to Cougar Den's importation of fuel is pre-empted by the treaty's reservation to the Yakama Nation of "the right, in common with citizens of the United States, to travel upon all public highways." We rest this conclusion upon three considerations taken together.
First, this Court has considered this treaty four times previously; each time it has considered language very similar to the language before us; and each time it has stressed that the language of the treaty should be understood as bearing the meaning that the Yakamas understood it to have in 1855. See Winans , 198 U.S. at 380-381, 25 S.Ct. 662 ; Seufert Brothers Co. v. United States , 249 U.S. 194, 196-198, 39 S.Ct. 203, 63 L.Ed. 555 (1919) ; Tulee , 315 U.S. at 683-685, 62 S.Ct. 862 ; Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Assn. , 443 U.S. 658, 677-678, 99 S.Ct. 3055, 61 L.Ed.2d 823 (1979).
The treaty language at issue in each of the four cases is similar, though not identical, to the language before us. The cases focus upon language that guarantees to the Yakamas "the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with citizens of the Territory." Art. III, para. 2, 12 Stat. 953. Here, the language guarantees to the Yakamas "the right, in common with citizens of the United States, to travel upon all public highways." Art. III, para. 1, ibid . The words "in common with" on their face could be read to permit application to the Yakamas of general legislation (like the legislation before us) that applies to all citizens, Yakama and non-Yakama alike. But this Court concluded the contrary because that is not what the Yakamas understood the words to mean in 1855. See Winans , 198 U.S. at 379, 381, 25 S.Ct. 662 ; Seufert Brothers , 249 U.S. at 198-199, 39 S.Ct. 203 ;
Tulee , 315 U.S. at 684, 62 S.Ct. 862 ; Fishing Vessel , 443 U.S. at 679, 684-685, 99 S.Ct. 3055.
The cases base their reasoning in part upon the fact that the treaty negotiations were conducted in, and the treaty was written in, languages that put the Yakamas at a significant disadvantage. See, e.g. , Winans , 198 U.S. at 380, 25 S.Ct. 662 ; Seufert Brothers , 249 U.S. at 198, 39 S.Ct. 203 ; Fishing Vessel , 443 U.S. at 667, n. 10, 99 S.Ct. 3055. The parties negotiated the treaty in Chinook jargon, a trading language of about 300 words that no Tribe used as a primary language. App. 65a; Fishing Vessel , 443 U.S. at 667, n. 10, 99 S.Ct. 3055. The parties memorialized the treaty in English, a language that the Yakamas could neither read nor write. And many of the representations that the United States made about the treaty had no adequate translation in the Yakamas' own language. App. 68a-69a.
Thus, in the year 1905, in Winans , this Court wrote that, to interpret the treaty, courts must focus upon the historical context in which it was written and signed. 198 U.S. at 381, 25 S.Ct. 662 ; see also Tulee , 315 U.S. at 684, 62 S.Ct. 862 ("It is our responsibility to see that the terms of the treaty are carried out, so far as possible, in accordance with the meaning they were understood to have by the tribal representatives at the council"); cf. Water Splash , Inc. v. Menon , 581 U.S. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 1504, 1511, 197 L.Ed.2d 826 (2017) (noting that, to ascertain the meaning of a treaty, courts "may look beyond the written words to the history of the treaty, the negotiations, and the practical construction adopted by the parties") (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court added, in light of the Yakamas' understanding in respect to the reservation of fishing rights, the treaty words "in common with" do not limit the reservation's scope to a right against discrimination. Winans , 198 U.S. at 380-381, 25 S.Ct. 662. Instead, as we explained in Tulee , Winans held that "Article III [of the treaty] conferred upon the Yakimas continuing rights, beyond those which other citizens may enjoy , to fish at their 'usual and accustomed places' in the ceded area." Tulee , 315 U.S. at 684, 62 S.Ct. 862 (citing Winans , 198 U.S. 371, 25 S.Ct. 662, 49 L.Ed. 1089 ; emphasis added). Also compare, e.g. , Fishing Vessel , 443 U.S. at 677, n. 22, 99 S.Ct. 3055 ("Whatever opportunities the treaties assure Indians with respect to fish are admittedly not 'equal' to , but are to some extent greater than , those afforded other citizens" (emphasis added)), with post , at ---- (KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting) (citing this same footnote in Fishing Vessel as support for the argument that the treaty guarantees the Yakamas only a right against discrimination). Construing the treaty as giving the Yakamas only antidiscrimination rights, rights that any inhabitant of the territory would have, would amount to "an impotent outcome to negotiations and a convention, which seemed to promise more and give the word of the Nation for more." Winans , 198 U.S. at 380, 25 S.Ct. 662.
Second, the historical record adopted by the agency and the courts below indicates that the right to travel includes a right to travel with goods for sale or distribution. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 33a; App. 56a-74a. When the United States and the Yakamas negotiated the treaty, both sides emphasized that the Yakamas needed to protect their freedom to travel so that they could continue to fish, to hunt, to gather food, and to trade. App. 65a-66a. The Yakamas maintained fisheries on the Columbia River, following the salmon runs as the fish moved through Yakama territory. Id. , at 62a-63a. The Yakamas traveled to the nearby plains region to hunt buffalo. Id. , at 61a. They traveled to the mountains to gather berries and roots. Ibid. The Yakamas' religion and culture also depended on certain goods, such as buffalo byproducts and shellfish, which they could often obtain only through trade. Id. , at 61a-62a. Indeed, the Yakamas formed part of a great trading network that stretched from the Indian tribes on the Northwest coast of North America to the plains tribes to the east. Ibid.
The United States' representatives at the treaty negotiations well understood these facts, including the importance of travel and trade to the Yakamas. Id ., at 63a. They repeatedly assured the Yakamas that under the treaty the Yakamas would be able to travel outside their reservation on the roads that the United States built. Id ., at 66a-67a; see also, e.g. , id. , at 66a (" '[W]e give you the privilege of traveling over roads' "). And the United States repeatedly assured the Yakamas that they could travel along the roads for trading purposes. Id ., at 65a-67a. Isaac Stevens, the Governor of the Washington Territory, told the Yakamas, for example, that, under the terms of the treaty, "You will be allowed to go on the roads, to take your things to market, your horses and cattle." App. to Brief for Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation as Amicus Curiae 68a (record of the treaty proceedings). He added that the Yakamas "will be allowed to go to the usual fishing places and fish in common with the whites, and to get roots and berries and to kill game on land not occupied by the whites; all this outside the Reservation." Ibid. Governor Stevens further urged the Yakamas to accept the United States' proposals for reservation boundaries in part because the proposal put the Yakama Reservation in close proximity to public highways that would facilitate trade. He said, " 'You will be near the great road and can take your horses and your cattle down the river and to the [Puget] Sound to market.' " App. 66a. In a word, the treaty negotiations and the United States' representatives' statements to the Yakamas would have led the Yakamas to understand that the treaty's protection of the right to travel on the public highways included the right to travel with goods for purposes of trade. We consequently so construe the relevant treaty provision.
Third, to impose a tax upon traveling with certain goods burdens that travel. And the right to travel on the public highways without such burdens is, as we have said, just what the treaty protects. Therefore, our precedents tell us that the tax must be pre-empted. In Tulee , for example, we held that the fishing right reserved by the Yakamas in the treaty pre-empted the application to the Yakamas of a state law requiring fishermen to buy fishing licenses. 315 U.S. at 684, 62 S.Ct. 862. We concluded that "such exaction of fees as a prerequisite to the enjoyment of " a right reserved in the treaty "cannot be reconciled with a fair construction of the treaty." Id ., at 685, 62 S.Ct. 862. If the cost of a fishing license interferes with the right to fish, so must a tax imposed on travel with goods (here fuel) interfere with the right to travel.
We consequently conclude that Washington's fuel tax "acts upon the Indians as a charge for exercising the very right their ancestors intended to reserve." Ibid . Washington's fuel tax cannot lawfully be assessed against Cougar Den on the facts here. Treaties with federally recognized Indian tribes-like the treaty at issue here-constitute federal law that pre-empts conflicting state law as applied to off-reservation activity by Indians. Cf. Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones , 411 U.S. 145, 148-149, 93 S.Ct. 1267, 36 L.Ed.2d 114 (1973).
B
Again, we are not convinced by the arguments raised to the contrary. THE CHIEF JUSTICE concedes that "the right to travel with goods is just an application of the Yakamas' right to travel." Post , at ---- (dissenting opinion); see also ibid. ("It ensures that the Yakamas enjoy the same privileges when they travel with goods as when they travel without them."). But he nevertheless insists that, because of the way in which the Washington statute taxes fuel, the statute does not interfere with the right to travel reserved by the Yakamas in the treaty. Post , at ----.
First, THE CHIEF JUSTICE finds it significant that "[t]he tax is calculated per gallon of fuel; not, like a toll, per vehicle or distance traveled." Ibid ., see also ibid. ("The tax before us does not resemble a blockade or a toll"). But that argument fails on its own terms. A toll on highway travel is no less a toll when the toll varies based on the number of axles on a vehicle traveling the highway, or on the number of people traveling in the vehicle. We cannot, therefore, see why the number of gallons of fuel that the vehicle carries should make all the difference. Put another way, the fact that a tax on travel varies based on the features of that travel does not mean that the tax is not a tax on travel.
Second, THE CHIEF JUSTICE argues that it "makes no sense," for example, to hold that "a tax on certain luxury goods" that is assessed the first time the goods are possessed in Washington cannot apply to a Yakama member "who buys" a mink coat "over the state line in Portland and then drives back to the reservation," but the tax can apply to a Yakama member who "buys a mink coat at an off-reservation store in Washington." Post , at ----. The short, conclusive answer to this argument is that there is a treaty that forbids taxing Yakama travel on highways with goods (e.g. , fuel, or even furs) for market; and there is no treaty that forbids taxing Yakama off-reservation purchases of goods. Indeed, if our precedents supported THE CHIEF JUSTICE's rule, then our fishing rights cases would have turned on whether Washington also taxed fish purchased in the grocery store. Compare, e.g. , Tulee , 315 U.S. at 682, n. 1, 62 S.Ct. 862 (holding that the fishing right reserved by the Yakamas in the treaty pre-empted the application to the Yakamas of a state law which prohibited " 'catch[ing] ... fish for food' " without having purchased a license). But in those cases, we did not look to whether fish were taxed elsewhere in Washington. That is because the treaty does not protect the Yakamas from state sales taxes imposed on the off-reservation sale of goods. Instead, the treaty protects the Yakamas' right to travel the public highways without paying state taxes on that activity, much like the treaty protects the Yakamas' right to fish without paying state taxes on that activity.
Third, THE CHIEF JUSTICE argues that only a law that "punished or charged the Yakamas" for an "integral feature" of a treaty right could be pre-empted by the treaty. Post , at 6. But that is true of the Washington statute at issue here. The treaty protects the right to travel with goods, see supra , at ---- - ----, and the Washington statute taxes travel with goods, see supra , at ---- - ----. Therefore, the statute charges the Yakamas for an "integral feature" of a treaty right. But even if the statute indirectly burdened a treaty right, under our precedents, the statute would still be pre-empted. One of the Washington statutes at issue in Winans was not a fishing regulation, but instead a trespassing statute. That trespassing statute indirectly burdened the right to fish by preventing the Yakamas from crossing privately owned land so that the Yakamas could reach their traditional fishing places and camp on that private property during the fishing season. See 198 U.S. at 380-381, 25 S.Ct. 662. It cannot be true that a law prohibiting trespassing imposed a burden on the right to fish that is "integral" enough to be pre-empted by the treaty, while a law taxing goods carried to the reservation on the public highway imposes a burden on the right to travel that is too attenuated to be pre-empted by the treaty.
C
Although we hold that the treaty protects the right to travel on the public highway with goods, we do not say or imply that the treaty grants protection to carry any and all goods. Nor do we hold that the treaty deprives the State of the power to regulate, say, when necessary for conservation. To the contrary, we stated in Tulee that, although the treaty "forecloses the [S]tate from charging the Indians a fee of the kind in question here," the State retained the "power to impose on Indians, equally with others, such restrictions of a purely regulatory nature ... as are necessary for the conservation of fish." 315 U.S. at 684, 62 S.Ct. 862. Indeed, it was crucial to our decision in Tulee that, although the licensing fees at issue were "regulatory as well as revenue producing," "their regulatory purpose could be accomplished otherwise," and "the imposition of license fees [was] not indispensable to the effectiveness of a state conservation program." Id ., at 685, 62 S.Ct. 862. See also Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Wash. , 391 U.S. 392, 402, n. 14, 88 S.Ct. 1725, 20 L.Ed.2d 689 (1968) ("As to a 'regulation' concerning the time and manner of fishing outside the reservation (as opposed to a 'tax'), we said that the power of the State was to be measured by whether it was 'necessary for the conservation of fish' " (quoting Tulee , 315 U.S. at 684, 62 S.Ct. 862 )).
Nor do we hold that the treaty deprives the State of the power to regulate to prevent danger to health or safety occasioned by a tribe member's exercise of treaty rights. The record of the treaty negotiations may not support the contention that the Yakamas expected to use the roads entirely unconstrained by laws related to health or safety. See App. to Brief for Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation as Amicus Curiae 20a-21a, 31a-32a. Governor Stevens explained, at length, the United States' awareness of crimes committed by United States citizens who settled amongst the Yakamas, and the United States' intention to enact laws that would restrain both the United States citizens and the Yakamas alike for the safety of both groups. See id. , at 31a.
Nor do we here interpret the treaty as barring the State from collecting revenue through sales or use taxes (applied outside the reservation). Unlike the tax at issue here, which applies explicitly to transport by "railcar, trailer, truck, or other equipment suitable for ground transportation," see supra , at ----, a sales or use tax normally applies irrespective of transport or its means. Here, however, we deal with a tax applicable simply to importation by ground transportation. Moreover, it is a tax designed to secure revenue that, as far as the record shows here, the State might obtain in other ways.
IV
To summarize, our holding rests upon three propositions: First, a state law that burdens a treaty-protected right is pre-empted by the treaty. See supra , at ---- - ----. Second, the treaty protects the Yakamas' right to travel on the public highway with goods for sale. See supra , at ---- - ----. Third, the Washington statute at issue here taxes the Yakamas for travelin g with fuel by public highway. See supra , at ---- - ----. For these three reasons, Washington's fuel tax cannot lawfully be assessed against Cougar Den on the facts here. Therefore, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Justice GORSUCH, with whom Justice GINSBURG joins, concurring in the judgment.
The Yakamas have lived in the Pacific Northwest for centuries. In 1855, the United States sought and won a treaty in which the Tribe agreed to surrender 10 million acres, land that today makes up nearly a quarter of the State of Washington. In return, the Yakamas received a reservation and various promises, including a guarantee that they would enjoy "the right, in common with citizens of the United States, to travel upon all public highways." Today, the parties offer dueling interpretations of this language. The State argues that it merely allows the Yakamas to travel on public highways like everyone else. And because everyone else importing gasoline from out of State by highway must pay a tax on that good, so must tribal members. Meanwhile, the Tribe submits that the treaty guarantees tribal members the right to move their goods to and from market freely. So that tribal members may bring goods, including gasoline, from an out-of-state market to sell on the reservation without incurring taxes along the way.
Our job here is a modest one. We are charged with adopting the interpretation most consistent with the treaty's original meaning. Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. Floyd , 499 U.S. 530, 534-535, 111 S.Ct. 1489, 113 L.Ed.2d 569 (1991). When we're dealing with a tribal treaty, too, we must "give effect to the terms as the Indians themselves would have understood them." Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians , 526 U.S. 172, 196, 119 S.Ct. 1187, 143 L.Ed.2d 270 (1999). After all, the United States drew up this contract, and we normally construe any ambiguities against the drafter who enjoys the power of the pen. Nor is there any question that the government employed that power to its advantage in this case. During the negotiations "English words were translated into Chinook jargon ... although that was not the primary language" of the Tribe. Yakama Indian Nation v. Flores , 955 F.Supp. 1229, 1243 (ED Wash. 1997). After the parties reached agreement, the U.S. negotiators wrote the treaty in English-a language that the Yakamas couldn't read or write. And like many such treaties, this one was by all accounts more nearly imposed on the Tribe than a product of its free choice.
When it comes to the Yakamas' understanding of the treaty's terms in 1855, we have the benefit of a set of unchallenged factual findings. The findings come from a separate case involving the Yakamas' challenge to certain restrictions on their logging operations. Id. , at 1231. The state Superior Court relied on these factual findings in this case and held Washington collaterally estopped from challenging them. Because the State did not challenge the Superior Court's estoppel ruling either in the Washington Supreme Court or here, these findings are binding on us as well.
They also tell us all we need to know to resolve this case. To some modern ears, the right to travel in common with others might seem merely a right to use the roads subject to the same taxes and regulations as everyone else. Post , at ---- - ---- (KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting). But that is not how the Yakamas understood the treaty's terms. To the Yakamas, the phrase " 'in common with' ... implie[d] that the Indian and non-Indian use [would] be joint but [did] not imply that the Indian use [would] be in any way restricted." Yakama Indian Nation , 955 F.Supp. at 1265. In fact, "[i]n the Yakama language, the term 'in common with' ... suggest[ed] public use or general use without restriction." Ibid. So "[t]he most the Indians would have understood ... of the term[s] 'in common with' and 'public' was that they would share the use of the road with whites." Ibid. Significantly, there is "no evidence [to] sugges[t] that the term 'in common with' placed Indians in the same category as non-Indians with respect to any tax or fee the latter must bear with respect to public roads." Id. , at 1247. Instead, the evidence suggests that the Yakamas understood the right-to-travel provision to provide them "with the right to travel on all public highways without being subject to any licensing and permitting fees related to the exercise of that right while engaged in the transportation of tribal goods." Id. , at 1262.
Applying these factual findings to our case requires a ruling for the Yakamas. As the Washington Supreme Court recognized, the treaty's terms permit regulations that allow the Yakamas and non-Indians to share the road in common and travel along it safely together. But they do not permit encumbrances on the ability of tribal members to bring their goods to and from market. And by everyone's admission, the state tax at issue here isn't about facilitating peaceful coexistence of tribal members and non-Indians on the public highways. It is about taxing a good as it passes to and from market-exactly what the treaty forbids.
A wealth of historical evidence confirms this understanding. The Yakama Indian Nation decision supplies an admirably rich account of the history, but it is enough to recount just some of the most salient details. "Prior to and at the time the treaty was negotiated," the Yakamas "engaged in a system of trade and exchange with other plateau tribes" and tribes "of the Northwest coast and plains of Montana and Wyoming." Ibid. This system came with no restrictions; the Yakamas enjoyed "free and open access to trade networks in order to maintain their system of trade and exchange." Id. , at 1263. They traveled to Oregon and maybe even to California to trade "fir trees, lava rocks, horses, and various species of salmon." Id. , at 1262-1263. This extensive travel "was necessary to obtain goods that were otherwise unavailable to [the Yakamas] but important for sustenance and religious purposes." Id. , at 1262. Indeed, "far-reaching travel was an intrinsic ingredient in virtually every aspect of Yakama culture." Id. , at 1238. Travel for purposes of trade was so important to the "Yakamas' way of life that they could not have performed and functioned as a distinct culture ... without extensive travel." Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Everyone understood that the treaty would protect the Yakamas' preexisting right to take goods to and from market freely throughout their traditional trading area. "At the treaty negotiations, a primary concern of the Indians was that they have freedom to move about to ... trade." Id. , at 1264. Isaac Stevens, the Governor of the Washington Territory, specifically promised the Yakamas that they would " 'be allowed to go on the roads to take [their] things to market.' " Id. , at 1244 (emphasis deleted). Governor Stevens called this the " 'same libert[y]' " to travel with goods free of restriction " 'outside the reservation' " that the Tribe would enjoy within the new reservation's boundaries. Ibid. Indeed, the U.S. representatives' "statements regarding the Yakama's use of the public highways to take their goods to market clearly and without ambiguity promised the Yakamas the use of public highways without restriction for future trading endeavors." Id. , at 1265. Before the treaty, then, the Yakamas traveled extensively without paying taxes to bring goods to and from market, and the record suggests that the Yakamas would have understood the treaty to preserve that liberty.
None of this can come as much of a surprise. As the State reads the treaty, it promises tribal members only the right to venture out of their reservation and use the public highways like everyone else. But the record shows that the consideration the Yakamas supplied was worth far more than an abject promise they would not be made prisoners on their reservation. In fact, the millions of acres the Tribe ceded were a prize the United States desperately wanted. U.S. treaty negotiators were "under tremendous pressure to quickly negotiate treaties with eastern Washington tribes, because lands occupied by those tribes were important in settling the Washington territory." Id. , at 1240. Settlers were flooding into the Pacific Northwest and building homesteads without any assurance of lawful title. The government needed "to obtain title to Indian lands" to place these settlements on a more lawful footing. Ibid. The government itself also wanted to build "wagon and military roads through Yakama lands to provide access to the settlements on the west side of the Cascades." Ibid. So "obtaining Indian lands east of the Cascades became a central objective" for the government's own needs. Id. , at 1241. The Yakamas knew all this and could see the writing on the wall: One way or another, their land would be taken. If they managed to extract from the negotiations the simple right to take their goods freely to and from market on the public highways, it was a price the United States was more than willing to pay. By any fair measure, it was a bargain-basement deal.
Our cases interpreting the treaty's neighboring and parallel right-to-fish provision further confirm this understanding. The treaty "secure[s] ... the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with citizens of the Territory." Treaty Between the United States and the Yakama Nation of Indians, Art. III, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 953 (emphasis added). Initially, some suggested this guaranteed tribal members only the right to fish according to the same regulations and subject to the same fees as non-Indians. But long ago this Court refused to impose such an "impotent" construction on the treaty. United States v. Winans , 198 U.S. 371, 380, 25 S.Ct. 662, 49 L.Ed. 1089 (1905). Instead, the Court held that the treaty language prohibited state officials from imposing many nondiscriminatory fees and regulations on tribal members. While such laws "may be both convenient and, in [their] general impact, fair," this Court observed, they act "upon the Indians as a charge for exercising the very right their ancestors intended to reserve." Tulee v. Washington , 315 U.S. 681, 685, 62 S.Ct. 862, 86 L.Ed. 1115 (1942). Interpreting the same treaty right in Winans, we held that, despite arguments otherwise, "the phrase 'in common with citizens of the Territory' " confers "upon the Yak[a]mas continuing rights, beyond those which other citizens may enjoy , to fish at their 'usual and accustomed places.' " Tulee , 315 U.S. at 684, 62 S.Ct. 862 (citing Winans , 198 U.S. at 371, 25 S.Ct. 662 ; emphasis added). Today, we simply recognize that the same language should yield the same result.
With its primary argument now having failed, the State encourages us to labor through a series of backups. It begins by pointing out that the treaty speaks of allowing the Tribe "free access" from local roads to the public highways, but indicates that tribal members are to use those highways "in common with" non-Indians. On the State's account, these different linguistic formulations must be given different meanings. And the difference the State proposes? No surprise: It encourages us to read the former language as allowing goods to be moved tax-free along local roads to the highways but the latter language as authorizing taxes on the Yakamas' goods once they arrive there. See also post , at ---- (KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting).
The trouble is that nothing in the record supports this interpretation. Uncontested factual findings reflect the Yakamas' understanding that the treaty would allow them to use the highways to bring goods to and from market freely. These findings bind us under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, and no one has proposed any lawful basis for ignoring them. Nor, for that matter, has anyone even tried to offer a reason why the Tribe might have bargained for the right to move its goods freely only part of the way to market. Our job in this case is to interpret the treaty as the Yakamas originally understood it in 1855-not in light of new lawyerly glosses conjured up for litigation a continent away and more than 150 years after the fact.
If that alternative won't work, the State offers another. It admits that the Yakamas personally may have a right to travel the highways free of most restrictions on their movement. See also post , at ---- (ROBERTS, C.J., dissenting) (acknowledging that the treaty prohibits the State from "charg[ing] ... a toll" on Yakamas traveling on the highway). But, the State continues, the law at issue here doesn't offend that right. It doesn't, we are told, because the "object" of the State's tax isn't travel but the possession of fuel; the fact that the State happens to assess its tax when fuel is possessed on a public highway rather than someplace else is neither here nor there. And just look, we are told, at the anomalies that might arise if we ruled otherwise. A tribal member who buys a "mink coat" in a Washington store would have to pay the State's sales tax, but a tribal member who purchases the same coat at market in Oregon could not be taxed for possessing it on the highway when reentering Washington. See post , at ---- - ----.
This argument suffers from much the same problem as its predecessors. Now, at least, the State may acknowledge that the Yakamas personally have a right to travel free of most restrictions. But the State still fails to give full effect to the treaty's terms and the Yakamas' original understanding of them. After all and as we've seen, the treaty doesn't just guarantee tribal members the right to travel on the highways free of most restrictions on their movement; it also guarantees tribal members the right to move goods freely to and from market using those highways. And it's impossible to transport goods without possessing them. So a tax that falls on the Yakamas' possession of goods as they travel to and from market on the highway violates the treaty just as much as a tax on travel alone would.
Consider the alternative. If the State could save the tax here simply by labeling it a fee on the "possession" of a good, the State might just as easily revive the fishing license fee Tulee struck down simply by calling it a fee on the "possession" of fish. That, of course, would be ridiculous. The Yakamas' right to fish includes the right to possess the fish they catch-just like their right to move goods on the highways embraces the right to possess them there. Nor does the State's reply solve the problem. It accepts, as it must, that possessing fish is "integral" to the right to fish. Post , at ----, n. 2 (ROBERTS, C.J., dissenting). But it stands pat on its assertion that the treaty protects nothing more than a personal right to travel, ignoring all of the facts and binding findings before us establishing that the treaty also guarantees a right to move (and so possess) goods freely as they travel to and from market. Ibid.
What about the supposed "mink coat" anomaly? Under the terms of the treaty before us, it's true that a Yakama who buys a mink coat (or perhaps some more likely item) at an off-reservation store in Washington will have to pay sales tax because the treaty is silent there. And it is also true that a Yakama who buys the same coat right over the state line, pays any taxes due at market there, and then drives back to the reservation using the public highways is entitled to move that good tax-free from market back to the reservation. But that is hardly anomalous-that is the treaty right the Yakamas reserved. And it's easy to see why. Imagine the Yakama Reservation reached the Washington/Oregon state line (as it did before the 1855 Treaty). In that case, Washington would have no basis to tax the Yakamas' transportation of goods from Oregon (whether they might be fuel, mink coats, or anything else), as all of the Yakamas' conduct would take place outside of the State or on the reservation. The only question here is whether the result changes because the Tribe must now use Washington's highways to make the trek home. And the answer is no. The Tribe bargained for a right to travel with goods off reservation just as it could on reservation and just as it had for centuries. If the State and federal governments do not like that result, they are free to bargain for more, but they do not get to rewrite the existing bargain in this Court.
Alternatively yet, the State warns us about the dire consequences of a ruling against it. Highway speed limits, reckless driving laws, and much more, the State tells us, will be at risk if we rule for the Tribe. See also post , at ---- - ---- (ROBERTS, C.J., dissenting). But notice. Once you acknowledge (as the State and primary dissent just have) that the Yakamas themselves enjoy a right to travel free of at least some nondiscriminatory state regulations, this "problem" inevitably arises. It inevitably arises, too, once you concede that the Yakamas enjoy a right to travel freely at least on local roads. See post , at ---- (KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting). Whether you read the treaty to afford the Yakamas the further right to bring goods to and from market is beside the point.
It turns out, too, that the State's parade of horribles isn't really all that horrible. While the treaty supplies the Yakamas with special rights to travel with goods to and from market, we have seen already that its "in common with" language also indicates that tribal members knew they would have to "share the use of the road with whites" and accept regulations designed to allow the two groups' safe coexistence. Yakama Indian Nation , 955 F.Supp. at 1265. Indeed, the Yakamas expected laws designed to "protec[t]" their ability to travel safely alongside non-Indians on the highways. See App. to Brief for Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation as Amicus Curiae 21a, 31a. Maybe, too, that expectation goes some way toward explaining why the State's hypothetical parade of horribles has yet to take its first step in the real world. No one before us has identified a single challenge to a state highway speed limit, reckless driving law, or other critical highway safety regulation in the entire life of the Yakama treaty.
Retreating now, the State suggests that the real problem isn't so much about the Yakamas themselves traveling freely as it is with their goods doing so. We are told we should worry, for example, about limiting Washington's ability to regulate the transportation of diseased apples from Oregon. See also post , at ---- (ROBERTS, C.J., dissenting). But if bad apples prove to be a public menace, Oregon and its localities may regulate them when they are grown or picked at the orchard. Oregon, its localities, and maybe even the federal government may regulate the bad apples when they arrive at market for sale in Oregon. The Tribe and again, perhaps, the federal government may regulate the bad apples when they arrive on the reservation. And if the bad apples somehow pose a threat to safe travel on the highways, even Washington may regulate them as they make their way from Oregon to the reservation-just as the State may require tribal members to abide nondiscriminatory regulations governing the safe transportation of flammable cargo as they drive their gas trucks from Oregon to the reservation along public highways. The only thing that Washington may not do is reverse the promise the United States made to the Yakamas in 1855 by imposing a tax or toll on tribal members or their goods as they pass to and from market.
Finally, some worry that, if we recognize the potential permissibility of state highway safety laws, we might wind up impairing the interests of "tribal members across the country." See post , at ---- (ROBERTS, C.J., dissenting). But our decision today is based on unchallenged factual findings about how the Yakamas themselves understood this treaty in light of the negotiations that produced it. And the Tribe itself has expressly acknowledged that its treaty, while extending real and valuable rights to tribal members, does not preclude laws that merely facilitate the safe use of the roads by Indians and non-Indians alike. Nor does anything we say here necessarily apply to other tribes and other treaties; each must be taken on its own terms. In the end, then, the only true threat to tribal interests today would come from replacing the meaningful right the Yakamas thought they had reserved with the trivial promise the State suggests.
Really, this case just tells an old and familiar story. The State of Washington includes millions of acres that the Yakamas ceded to the United States under significant pressure. In return, the government supplied a handful of modest promises. The State is now dissatisfied with the consequences of one of those promises. It is a new day, and now it wants more. But today and to its credit, the Court holds the parties to the terms of their deal. It is the least we can do.
Chief Justice ROBERTS, with whom Justice THOMAS, Justice ALITO, and Justice KAVANAUGH join, dissenting.
In the 1855 treaty in which the Yakamas surrendered most of their lands to the United States, the Tribe sought to protect its way of life by reserving, among other rights, "the right, in common with citizens of the United States, to travel upon all public highways." Treaty Between the United States and the Yakama Nation of Indians, Art. III, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 953. Cougar Den, a Yakama corporation that uses public highways to truck gas into Washington, contends that the treaty exempts it from Washington's fuel tax, which the State assesses upon the importation of fuel into the State. The plurality agrees, concluding that Washington cannot impose the tax on Cougar Den because doing so would "have the practical effect of burdening" Cougar Den's exercise of its right to travel on the highways. Ante , at ----. The concurrence reaches the same result, reasoning that, because the Yakamas' right to travel includes the right to travel with goods, the State cannot tax or regulate the Yakamas' goods on the highways. Ante , at ---- - ---- (GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment).
But the mere fact that a state law has an effect on the Yakamas while they are exercising a treaty right does not establish that the law impermissibly burdens the right itself. And the right to travel with goods is just an application of the Yakamas' right to travel. It ensures that the Yakamas enjoy the same privileges when they travel with goods as when they travel without them. It is not an additional right to possess whatever goods they wish on the highway, immune from regulation and taxation. Under our precedents, a state law violates a treaty right only if the law imposes liability upon the Yakamas "for exercising the very right their ancestors intended to reserve." Tulee v. Washington , 315 U.S. 681, 685, 62 S.Ct. 862, 86 L.Ed. 1115 (1942). Because Washington is taxing Cougar Den for possessing fuel, not for traveling on the highways, the State's method of administering its fuel tax is consistent with the treaty. I respectfully dissent from the contrary conclusion of the plurality and concurrence.
We have held on three prior occasions that a nondiscriminatory state law violated a right the Yakamas reserved in the 1855 treaty. All three cases involved the "right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with citizens of the Territory." Art. III, 12 Stat. 953. In United States v. Winans , 198 U.S. 371, 25 S.Ct. 662, 49 L.Ed. 1089 (1905), and later again in Seufert Brothers Co. v. United States , 249 U.S. 194, 39 S.Ct. 203, 63 L.Ed. 555 (1919), we held that state trespass law could not be used to prevent tribe members from reaching a historic fishing site. And in Tulee v. Washington , we held that Washington could not punish a Yakama member for fishing without a license. We concluded that the license law was preempted because the required fee "act[ed] upon the Indians as a charge for exercising the very right their ancestors intended to reserve"-the right to fish. 315 U.S. at 685, 62 S.Ct. 862.
These three cases found a violation of the treaty when the challenged action-application of trespass law and enforcement of a license requirement-actually blocked the Yakamas from fishing at traditional locations. Applying the reasoning of those decisions to the Yakamas' right to travel, it follows that a State could not bar Yakama members from traveling on a public highway, or charge them a toll to do so.
Nothing of the sort is at issue here. The tax before us does not resemble a blockade or a toll. It is a tax on a product imported into the State, not a tax on highway travel. The statute says as much: "There is hereby levied and imposed ... a tax ... on each gallon of motor vehicle fuel ." Wash. Rev. Code § 82.36.020(1) (2012) (emphasis added). It is difficult to imagine how the legislature could more clearly identify the object of the tax. The tax is calculated per gallon of fuel; not, like a toll, per vehicle or distance traveled. It is imposed on the owner of the fuel, not the driver or owner of the vehicle-separate entities in this case. And it is imposed at the same rate on fuel that enters the State by methods other than a public highway-whether private road, rail, barge, or pipeline. §§ 82.36.010(4), 020(1), (2). Had Cougar Den filled up its trucks at a refinery or pipeline terminal in Washington, rather than trucking fuel in from Oregon, there would be no dispute that it was subject to the exact same tax. See §§ 82.36.020(2)(a), (b)(ii). Washington is taxing the fuel that Cougar Den imports, not Cougar Den's travel on the highway; it is not charging the Yakamas "for exercising the very right their ancestors intended to reserve." Tulee , 315 U.S. at 685, 62 S.Ct. 862.
It makes no difference that Washington happens to impose that charge when Cougar Den's drivers cross into Washington on a public highway. The time and place of the imposition of the tax does not change what is taxed, and thus what activity-possession of goods or travel-is burdened. Say Washington imposes a tax on certain luxury goods, assessed upon first possession of the goods by a retail customer. A Yakama member who buys a mink coat at an off-reservation store in Washington will pay the tax. Yet, as the plurality acknowledges, under its view a tribal member who buys the same coat right over the state line in Portland and then drives back to the reservation will owe no tax-all because of a reserved right to travel on the public highways. Ante , at ----. That makes no sense. The tax charges individuals for possessing expensive furs. It in no way burdens highway travel.
The plurality devotes five pages to planting trees in hopes of obscuring the forest: to delving into irrelevancies about how the tax is assessed or collected, instead of the substance of what is taxed. However assessed or collected, the tax on 10,000 gallons of fuel is the same whether the tanker carrying it travels three miles in Washington or three hundred. The tax varies only with the amount of fuel. Why? Because the tax is on fuel, not travel. If two tankers travel 200 miles together from the same starting point to the same destination-one empty, one full of fuel-the full tanker will pay the fuel tax, the empty tanker will pay nothing. Their travel has been identical, but only the full one pays tax. Why? Because the tax is on fuel, not travel. The tax is on the owner of the fuel, not the owner of the vehicle. Why? You get the point.
The plurality responds that, even though the tax is calculated per gallon of fuel, it remains a tax on travel because it taxes a "feature" of travel. Ante , at ----. It is of course true that tanker trucks can be seen from time to time on the highways, but that hardly makes them a regular "feature" of travel, like the plurality's examples of axles or passengers. And we know that Washington is not taxing the gas insofar as it is a feature of Cougar Den's travel, because Washington imposes the exact same tax on gas that is not in transit on the highways.
Rather than grappling with the substance of the tax, the plurality fixates on variations in the time and place of its assessment. The plurality thinks it significant that Washington does not impose the tax at the moment of entry on fuel that enters the State by pipeline or by a barge bound for a refinery, but instead when a tanker truck withdraws the fuel from the refinery or pipeline terminal. This may demonstrate that the tax is not on first possession of fuel in the State, as the plurality stresses, but it hardly demonstrates that the tax is not on possession of fuel at all . Regardless of how fuel enters the State, someone will eventually pay a per-gallon charge for possessing it. Washington simply assesses the fuel tax in each case upon the wholesaler. See 188 Wash. 2d 55, 60, 392 P.3d 1014, 1016 (2017). This variation does not indicate, as the plurality suggests, that the fuel tax is somehow targeted at highway travel.
The plurality also says that it is bound by the Washington Supreme Court's references to the tax as an "importation tax" and tax on "the importation of fuel," ante , at ---- (quoting 188 Wash. 2d, at 67, 69, 392 P.3d at 1019, 1020 ), but these two references to the point at which the tax is assessed are not authoritative constructions of the object of the tax. The state court did not reject Washington's argument that this is a tax on fuel; instead, like the plurality today, it ignored that argument and concluded that the tax was invalid simply because Washington imposed it while Cougar Den was traveling on the highway. In any event, the state court more often referred to the tax as a "tax on fuels" or "fuel tax[ ]." Id ., at 58-61, 392 P.3d at 1015-1016.
After the five pages arguing that a tax expressly labeled as on "motor vehicle fuel" is actually a tax on something else, the plurality concludes ... it doesn't matter. As the plurality puts it at page nine of its opinion, "even if " the tax is on fuel and not travel, it is preempted because it has "the practical effect of burdening" the Yakamas' right to travel on the highways. The plurality's rule-that States may not enforce general legislation that has an effect on the Yakamas while they are traveling-has no basis in our precedents, which invalidated laws that punished or charged the Yakamas simply for exercising their reserved rights. The plurality is, of course, correct that the trespass law in Winans did not target fishing, but it effectively made illegal the very act of fishing at a traditional location. Here, it is the possession of commercial quantities of fuel that exposes the Yakamas to liability, not travel itself or any integral feature of travel.
The concurrence reaches the same result as the plurality, but on different grounds. Rather than holding that the treaty preempts any law that burdens the Yakamas while traveling on the highways, the concurrence reasons that the fuel tax is preempted because it regulates the possession of goods, and the Yakamas' right to travel includes the right to travel with goods. Ante , at ---- - ----. But the right to travel with goods is just an application of the right to travel. It means the Yakamas enjoy the same privileges whether they travel with goods or without. It does not provide the Yakamas with an additional right to carry any and all goods on the highways, tax free, in any manner they wish. The concurrence purports to find this additional right in the record of the treaty negotiations, but the record shows only that the Yakamas wanted to ensure they could continue to travel to the places where they traded. They did not, and did not intend to, insulate the goods they carried from all regulation and taxation.
Nothing in the text of the treaty, the historical record, or our precedents supports the conclusion that the right "to travel upon all public highways" transforms the Yakamas' vehicles into mobile reservations, immunizing their contents from any state interference. Before it reaches the reservation, the fuel in Cougar Den's tanker trucks is always susceptible to state regulation-it does not pass in and out of state authority with every exit off or entry onto the road.
Recognizing the potentially broad sweep of its new rule, the plurality cautions that it does not intend to deprive the State of the power to regulate when necessary "to prevent danger to health or safety occasioned by a tribe member's exercise of treaty rights." Ante , at ----. This escape hatch ensures, the plurality suggests, that the treaty will not preempt essential regulations that burden highway travel. Ante , at ---- - ----. I am not so confident.
First, by its own terms, the plurality's health and safety exception is limited to laws that regulate dangers "occasioned by" a Yakama's travel. That would seem to allow speed limits and other rules of the road. But a law against possession of drugs or illegal firearms-the dangers of which have nothing to do with travel-does not address a health or safety risk "occasioned by" highway driving. I do not see how, under the plurality's rule or the concurrence's, a Washington police officer could burden a Yakama's travel by pulling him over on suspicion of carrying such contraband on the highway.
But the more fundamental problem is that this Court has never recognized a health and safety exception to reserved treaty rights, and the plurality today mentions the exception only in passing. Importantly, our precedents-all of which concern hunting and fishing rights-acknowledge the authority of the States to regulate Indians' exercise of their reserved rights only in the interest of conservation . See Tulee , 315 U.S. at 684, 62 S.Ct. 862 ("[T]he treaty leaves the state with power to impose on Indians, equally with others, such restrictions ... as are necessary for the conservation of fish ...."); see also Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians , 526 U.S. 172, 205, 119 S.Ct. 1187, 143 L.Ed.2d 270 (1999) ("We have repeatedly reaffirmed state authority to impose reasonable and necessary nondiscriminatory regulations on Indian hunting, fishing, and gathering rights in the interest of conservation."); Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation v. Anderson , 903 F.Supp.2d 1187, 1197 (ED Wash. 2011) ("Notably absent from the binding Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit cases dealing with state regulation of 'in common' usufructuary rights is any reference to a state's exercise of its public-safety police power."). Indeed, this Court had previously assured the Yakamas that "treaty fishermen are immune from all regulation save that required for conservation ." Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Assn. , 443 U.S. 658, 682, 99 S.Ct. 3055, 61 L.Ed.2d 823 (1979) (emphasis added). Adapted to the travel right, the conservation exception would presumably protect regulations that preserve the subject of the Yakamas' right by maintaining safe and orderly travel on the highways. But many regulations that burden highway travel (such as emissions standards, noise restrictions, or the plurality's hypothetical ban on the importation of plutonium) do not fit that description.
The need for the health and safety exception, of course, follows from the overly expansive interpretation of the treaty right adopted by the plurality and concurrence. Today's decision digs such a deep hole that the future promises a lot of backing and filling. Perhaps there are good reasons to revisit our long-held understanding of reserved treaty rights as the plurality does, and adopt a broad health and safety exception to deal with the inevitable fallout. Hard to say, because no party or amicus has addressed the question.
The plurality's response to this important issue is the following, portentous sentence: "The record of the treaty negotiations may not support the contention that the Yakamas expected to use the roads entirely unconstrained by laws related to health or safety."Ante , at ----. A lot of weight on two words, "may not." The plurality cites assurances from the territorial Governor of Washington that the United States would make laws to prevent "bad white men" from harming the Yakamas, and that the United States expected the Yakamas to exercise similar restraint in return. Ante , at ----. What this has to do with health and safety regulations affecting the highways (or fishing or hunting) is not clear.
In the meantime, do not assume today's decision is good news for tribal members across the country. Application of state safety regulations, for example, could prevent Indians from hunting and fishing in their traditional or preferred manner, or in particular "usual and accustomed places." I fear that, by creating the need for this untested exception, the unwarranted expansion of the Yakamas' right to travel may undermine rights that the Yakamas and other tribes really did reserve.
The concurrence does not mention the plurality's possible health and safety exception, but observes that the Yakamas expected to follow laws that "facilitate the safe use of the roads by Indians and non-Indians alike." Ante , at ----. The State is therefore wrong, the concurrence says, to contend that a decision exempting Cougar Den's fuel from taxation would call into question speed limits and reckless driving laws. But that is not the State's principal argument. The State acknowledges that laws facilitating safe travel on the highways would fall within the long-recognized conservation exception. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 12-13. The problem is that today's ruling for Cougar Den preempts the enforcement of any regulation of goods on the highway that does not concern travel safety-such as a prohibition on the possession of potentially contaminated apples taken from a quarantined area (a matter of vital concern in Washington). See id ., at 13; Brief for Petitioner 44.
The concurrence says not to worry, the apples could be regulated and inspected where they are grown, or when they arrive at a market. Or, if the Yakamas are taking the apples back to the reservation, perhaps the Federal Government or the Tribe itself could address the problem there. Ante , at ----. What the concurrence does not say is that the State could regulate the contraband apples on the highway. And there is no reason offered why other contraband should be treated any differently.
Surely the concurrence does not mean to suggest that the parties to the 1855 treaty intended to confer on the Tribe the right to travel with illegal goods, free of any regulation. But if that is not the logical consequence of the decision today, the plurality and the concurrence should explain why. It is the least they should do.
I respectfully dissent.
Justice KAVANAUGH, with whom Justice THOMAS joins, dissenting.
The text of the 1855 treaty between the United States and the Yakama Tribe affords the Tribe a "right, in common with citizens of the United States, to travel upon all public highways." Treaty Between the United States and the Yakama Nation of Indians, Art. III, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 953. The treaty's "in common with" language means what it says. The treaty recognizes tribal members' right to travel on off-reservation public highways on equal terms with other U.S. citizens. Under the text of the treaty, the tribal members, like other U.S. citizens, therefore still remain subject to nondiscriminatory state highway regulations-that is, to regulations that apply equally to tribal members and other U.S. citizens. See Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones , 411 U.S. 145, 148-149, 93 S.Ct. 1267, 36 L.Ed.2d 114 (1973). That includes, for example, speed limits, truck restrictions, and reckless driving laws.
The Washington law at issue here imposes a nondiscriminatory fuel tax. THE CHIEF JUSTICE concludes that the fuel tax is not a highway regulation and, for that reason, he says that the fuel tax does not infringe the Tribe's treaty right to travel on the public highways. I agree with THE CHIEF JUSTICE and join his dissent.
Even if the fuel tax is a highway regulation, it is a nondiscriminatory highway regulation. For that reason as well, the fuel tax does not infringe the Tribe's treaty right to travel on the public highways on equal terms with other U.S. citizens.
The plurality, as well as the concurrence in the judgment, suggests that the treaty, if construed that way, would not have been important to the Yakamas. For that reason, the plurality and the concurrence would not adhere to that textual meaning and would interpret "in common with" other U.S. citizens to mean, in essence, "exempt from regulations that apply to" other U.S. citizens.
I respectfully disagree with that analysis. The treaty right to travel on the public highways "in common with"-that is, on equal terms with-other U.S. citizens was important to the Yakama tribal members at the time the treaty was signed. That is because, as of 1855, States and the Federal Government sometimes required tribal members to seek permission before leaving their reservations or even prohibited tribal members from leaving their reservations altogether. See, e.g., Treaty Between the United States of America and the Utah Indians, Art. VII, Dec. 30, 1849, 9 Stat 985; Mo. Rev. Stat., ch. 80, § 10 (1845). The Yakamas needed to travel to sell their goods and trade for other goods. As a result, those kinds of laws would have devastated the Yakamas' way of life. Importantly, the terms of the 1855 treaty made crystal clear that those kinds of travel restrictions could not be imposed on the Yakamas.
In particular, the treaty afforded Yakama tribal members two relevant rights. First was "free access" on roads from the reservation to "the nearest public highway." Art. III, 12 Stat. 953. Second was a right to travel "in common with" other U.S. citizens on "all public highways." Ibid. The right to free access from the reservation to public highways, combined with the right to travel off reservation on public highways, facilitated the Yakama tribal members' extensive trading network.
In determining the meaning of the "in common with" language, we must recognize that the treaty used different language in defining (1) the right to "free access," which applies only on roads connecting the reservation to the off-reservation public highways, and (2) the right to travel "in common with" other U.S. citizens, which applies on those off-reservation public highways. The approach of the plurality and the concurrence would collapse that distinction between the "free access" and "in common with" language and thereby depart from the text of the treaty. I would stick with the text. The treaty's "in common with" language-both at the time the treaty was signed and now-means what it says: the right for Yakama tribal members to travel on public highways on equal terms with other U.S. citizens.
To be sure, the treaty as negotiated and written may not have turned out to be a particularly good deal for the Yakamas. As a matter of separation of powers, however, courts are bound by the text of the treaty. See Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife v. Klamath Tribe , 473 U.S. 753, 774, 105 S.Ct. 3420, 87 L.Ed.2d 542 (1985). It is for Congress and the President, not the courts, to update a law and provide additional compensation or benefits to tribes beyond those provided by an old law. And since 1855, and especially since 1968, Congress has in fact taken many steps to assist tribes through a variety of significant legislative measures. In short, lament about the terms of the treaty negotiated by the Federal Government and the Tribe in 1855 does not support the Judiciary (as opposed to Congress and the President) rewriting the law in 2019.
What about precedent? It is true that some of our older precedents interpreted similar "in common with" treaty language regarding fishing rights to grant tribal members an exemption from certain fishing regulations, even when the fishing regulations were nondiscriminatory. But as we explained in the most recent of those fishing cases, those nondiscriminatory fishing regulations had the effect of preventing the Tribes from catching a fair share of the fish in the relevant area. In other words, the fishing regulations at issue were discriminatory in effect even though nondiscriminatory on their face. See Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Assn. , 443 U.S. 658, 676, n. 22, 99 S.Ct. 3055, 61 L.Ed.2d 823 (1979).
That rationale for departing from the treaty text in the narrow context of the fishing cases does not apply in the highway context. Facially nondiscriminatory highway regulations-such as speed limits, truck restrictions, and reckless driving laws-are also nondiscriminatory in effect, as relevant here. They do not deprive tribal members of use of the public highways or deprive tribal members of a fair share of the public highways.
Washington's facially nondiscriminatory fuel tax is likewise nondiscriminatory in effect. The Washington fuel tax therefore does not violate the key principle articulated in the fishing cases. I would adhere to the text of the treaty and hold that the tribal members, like other citizens of the State of Washington, are subject to the nondiscriminatory fuel tax.
The Court (via the plurality opinion and the concurrence) disagrees. The Court relies on the fishing cases and fashions a new right for Yakama tribal members to disregard even nondiscriminatory highway regulations, such as the Washington fuel tax and perhaps also Washington's similarly structured cigarette tax. The Court's newly created right will allow Yakama businesses not to pay state taxes that must be paid by other competing businesses, including by businesses run by members of the many other tribes in the State of Washington. As a result, the State of Washington (along with other States) stands to lose millions of dollars annually in tax revenue, which will necessarily mean fewer services or increased taxes for other citizens and tribes in the State.
In addition, the Court's newly created right-if applied across the board-would seem to afford Yakama tribal members an exemption from all manner of highway regulations, ranging from speed limits to truck restrictions to reckless driving laws. No doubt because of those negative real-world consequences, the Court simultaneously fashions a new health and safety exception. But neither the right nor the exception comes from the text of the treaty. As THE CHIEF JUSTICE explains, the Court's "need for the health and safety exception, of course, follows from the overly expansive interpretation of the treaty right adopted by the plurality and concurrence."Ante , at ----.
I share THE CHIEF JUSTICE's concern that the Court's new right for tribal members to disregard even nondiscriminatory highway regulations and the Court's new exception to that right for health and safety regulations could generate significant uncertainty and unnecessary litigation for States and tribes. THE CHIEF JUSTICE says it well: The Court "digs such a deep hole that the future promises a lot of backing and filling." Ibid.
Instead of judicially creating a new atextual right for tribal members to disregard nondiscriminatory highway regulations and then backfilling by judicially creating a new atextual exception to that right for health and safety regulations, I would adhere to the text of the treaty and leave it to Congress, if it chooses, to provide additional benefits for the Yakamas. In my respectful view, even when we interpret any ambiguities in the treaty in favor of the Tribe, the treaty phrase "in common with" cannot properly be read to exempt tribal members from nondiscriminatory highway regulations.
In sum, under the treaty, Washington's nondiscriminatory fuel tax may be imposed on Yakama tribal members just as it may be imposed on other citizens and tribes in the State of Washington. I respectfully dissent.
There is something of an optical illusion in this case that may subtly distort analysis. It comes from the fact that the tax here happens to be on motor fuel. There is no claim, however, that the tax inhibits the treaty right to travel because of the link between motor fuel and highway travel. The question presented must be analyzed as if the tax were imposed on goods of any sort.
The plurality simply assumes that the right to travel with goods is an additional, substantive right when it reasons that the fuel tax is preempted because it taxes an "integral feature" of travel with goods. Ante , at ----. The concurrence makes the same assumption when it compares the fuel tax to a tax on " 'possession' of fish" Ante , at ----. That tax would be preempted because "taking possession of fish" is just another way of describing the act of fishing. But possession of a tanker full of fuel is not an integral feature of travel, which is the relevant activity protected by the treaty.
I understand both the plurality opinion and the concurrence to approve of a health and safety exception.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.