concluding the HBA contains no clear and unambiguous mandate providing for state enforcement, and further concluding that, had Congress intended for states to enforce the HBA on Indian tribal lands, "it would have empowered the relevant state authorities to condemn reservation lands, to regulate tribal land use, and to sue Indian tribes."
How later courts described this case
- concluding the HBA contains no clear and unambiguous mandate providing for state enforcement, and further concluding that, had Congress intended for states to enforce the HBA on Indian tribal lands, "it would have empowered the relevant state authorities to condemn reservation lands, to regulate tribal land use, and to sue Indian tribes."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*524 MOSK, J.
I concur in the majority opinion.
In doing so, however, I wonder about the appearance of consistency when the court defers to federal control of Indian lands in a case involving billboards, after holding that traditional Indian hunting and fishing rights must yield to state control in a case involving fish and game laws. (In re Wilson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 21 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 336 , 634 P.2d 363 ]; but see dis. opn. by Mosk, J., and Newman, J., at p. 37 ff.)
To offer a more convincing rationale in the instant matter, and to provide a recognizable pattern in the law, we should take this opportunity to overrule Wilson.
The petition of respondent Department of Transportation for a rehearing was denied July 10, 1985, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above.