Uploaded June 2025 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Atkinson Trading Co. v. Shirley | 532 U.S. 645 (2001)
In Atkinson Trading Company versus Shirley, we'll see whether an Indian tribe can impose a tax on non member hotel guests who stay on non Indian fee land within the tribe's reservation.
In nineteen sixteen, Hubert Richardson purchased land in Arizona from the United States government and built the Cameron Trading Post. In nineteen thirty four, the boundaries of the Navajo Nation reservation expanded, which brought the trading post into the reservation boundaries.
However, Richardson still owned his land in fee. Over time, Richardson also built a hotel and restaurant at the trading post. Atkinson Trading Company later became the owner of the property.
In nineteen ninety two, the Navajo Nation enacted an eight percent hotel occupancy tax for all hotels located within the reservation's boundaries.
Hotel guests had a legal responsibility to pay the tax. However, hotel owners had to collect the tax from the guests and submit the revenue to the Navajo tax commission. The Cameron Trading Post Hotel paid about eighty four thousand dollars of hotel taxes every year.
Atkinson challenged the tribe's authority to impose the tax under the United States Supreme Court's holding in Montana versus United States.
In Montana, the court held that Indian tribes don't have civil authority over nonmembers on non Indian land within a reservation unless the nonmembers entered into a consensual relationship with the tribe or a nonIndian's conduct on the non Indian land threatens or affects the tribe's political integrity, economic security, or health or welfare.
A tribe's civil authority includes its ability to tax nonmembers. The Navajo tax commission and the Navajo supreme court rejected Atkinson's challenge to the hotel tax. Atkinson then sued Navajo tax commission members, including Joe Shirley in district court. The district court upheld the tax. Atkinson appealed, but the court of appeals affirmed the district court's holding. The court of appeals held that the hotel tax fell under the first Montana exception.
The court found that there was a consensual relationship between nonmember guests and the tribe because guests could stay off reservation and not pay the tax.
Also, the tribe provided certain services to the hotel and its guests, such as tribal police, fire, and medical services. Atkinson appealed again, and the United States Supreme Court granted cert.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [insert link of case brief on Quimbee]
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [insert the link of the case brief on Quimbee]
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Atkinson Trading Co. v. Shirley | 532 U.S. 645 (2001)
In Atkinson Trading Company versus Shirley, we'll see whether an Indian tribe can impose a tax on non member hotel guests who stay on non Indian fee land within the tribe's reservation.
In nineteen sixteen, Hubert Richardson purchased land in Arizona from the United States government and built the Cameron Trading Post. In nineteen thirty four, the boundaries of the Navajo Nation reservation expanded, which brought the trading post into the reservation boundaries.
However, Richardson still owned his land in fee. Over time, Richardson also built a hotel and restaurant at the trading post. Atkinson Trading Company later became the owner of the property.
In nineteen ninety two, the Navajo Nation enacted an eight percent hotel occupancy tax for all hotels located within the reservation's boundaries.
Hotel guests had a legal responsibility to pay the tax. However, hotel owners had to collect the tax from the guests and submit the revenue to the Navajo tax commission. The Cameron Trading Post Hotel paid about eighty four thousand dollars of hotel taxes every year.
Atkinson challenged the tribe's authority to impose the tax under the United States Supreme Court's holding in Montana versus United States.
In Montana, the court held that Indian tribes don't have civil authority over nonmembers on non Indian land within a reservation unless the nonmembers entered into a consensual relationship with the tribe or a nonIndian's conduct on the non Indian land threatens or affects the tribe's political integrity, economic security, or health or welfare.
A tribe's civil authority includes its ability to tax nonmembers. The Navajo tax commission and the Navajo supreme court rejected Atkinson's challenge to the hotel tax. Atkinson then sued Navajo tax commission members, including Joe Shirley in district court. The district court upheld the tax. Atkinson appealed, but the court of appeals affirmed the district court's holding. The court of appeals held that the hotel tax fell under the first Montana exception.
The court found that there was a consensual relationship between nonmember guests and the tribe because guests could stay off reservation and not pay the tax.
Also, the tribe provided certain services to the hotel and its guests, such as tribal police, fire, and medical services. Atkinson appealed again, and the United States Supreme Court granted cert.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [insert link of case brief on Quimbee]
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [insert the link of the case brief on Quimbee]
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
