Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Montana v. United States Case Brief

Supreme Court of the United States1981Docket #432572
67 L. Ed. 2d 493 101 S. Ct. 1245 450 U.S. 544 1981 U.S. LEXIS 9 Federal Indian Law Property Law Constitutional Law Jurisdiction

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
3 min read

tl;dr: The Supreme Court held that the Crow Tribe lacked inherent sovereign authority to regulate hunting and fishing by non-Indians on fee-simple land owned by non-Indians within its reservation, and that title to the navigable Big Horn River bed passed to the state of Montana.

Legal Significance: This landmark case established the general rule that Indian tribes lack civil jurisdiction over the conduct of non-members on non-Indian fee land within a reservation, subject to two narrow exceptions, now known as the “Montana test.”

Montana v. United States Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

The Crow Tribe of Montana, relying on treaties from 1851 and 1868 and its inherent sovereignty, passed a resolution prohibiting hunting and fishing by non-members within its reservation. The 1868 treaty had set apart the reservation for the Tribe’s “absolute and undisturbed use and occupation.” However, subsequent federal allotment acts, such as the General Allotment Act of 1887 and the Crow Allotment Act of 1920, resulted in a significant portion of the reservation land being conveyed in fee simple to non-Indians. The United States, as trustee for the Tribe, sued Montana, seeking a declaration that the Tribe had sole authority to regulate hunting and fishing on all lands within the reservation, including the non-Indian owned fee lands. The suit also sought to quiet title to the bed of the navigable Big Horn River in the United States in trust for the Tribe. The State of Montana contended that it held title to the riverbed and possessed the authority to regulate non-Indian hunting and fishing on the fee lands.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does an Indian tribe retain inherent sovereign power to regulate hunting and fishing by non-Indians on land located within its reservation but owned in fee by non-Indians?

The judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed. The Crow Tribe Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit es

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does an Indian tribe retain inherent sovereign power to regulate hunting and fishing by non-Indians on land located within its reservation but owned in fee by non-Indians?

Conclusion

This decision significantly limited the scope of inherent tribal sovereignty by establishing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam,

Legal Rule

The inherent sovereign powers of an Indian tribe do not extend to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non pro

Legal Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeded in two parts. First, addressing the ownership of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation u

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • Under the “equal footing” doctrine, title to navigable riverbeds passes to
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+