Rice v. Rehner

Rice v. Rehner
Rice v. Rehner
	Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 21, 1983; Decided July 1, 1983
Full case name	Baxter Rice, Individually and as Director of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of California v. Eva Rehner
Citations	463 U.S. 713 (more) 103 S. Ct. 3291; 77 L. Ed. 2d 961
Case history
Prior	Rehner v. Rice, 678 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir. 1982)
Holding
	California may properly require respondent to obtain a state license in order to sell liquor for off-premises consumption.
Court membership
	Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White; Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun; Lewis F. Powell Jr. · William Rehnquist; John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
Majority	O'Connor, joined by Burger, White, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens
Dissent	Blackmun, joined by Brennan, Marshall
Laws applied
	18 U.S.C. § 1161

Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held California may properly require respondent to obtain a state license in order to sell liquor for off-premises consumption.[1]

Background

Eva Rehner was a federally licensed Indian trader who operates a general store on a Native American (Indian) reservation in California. California refused an exemption from the state liquor licensing scheme and she filed suit in U.S. District Court. The District Court dismissed the suit, holding that Rehner was required to have a state license under 18 U.S.C. § 1161.[2] The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that § 1161 preempted state law over tribal liquor sales in Indian country.[3]

Opinion of the Court

Justice Justice O'Connor delivered the opinion of the Court. O'Connor noted that there was no history of liquor regulation by Indian tribes. The statute in question, 18 U.S.C. § 1161 authorized the state regulation of liquor with Indian tribes. Both the states and the tribes are authorized to regulate liquor under the statute. Here the application of the state liquor laws is specifically authorized by Congress and does not interfere with federal policies concerning the reservation.[4]

The decision of the Ninth Circuit was reversed and remanded for action in compliance with the Court's opinion.[5]

Dissent

Justice Blackmun dissented. Blackmun noted that 25 U.S.C. § 261 provided that “The Commissioner of Indian Affairs shall have the sole power and authority to appoint traders to the Indian tribes and to make such rules and regulations as he may deem just and proper specifying the kind and quantity of goods and the prices at which such goods shall be sold to the Indians.”[6] Blackmun believed that this prevented state regulation of Indian traders.[7]

References

Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983).
18 U.S.C. § 1161.
Rehner v. Rice, 678 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir. 1982).
Rice, 463 U.S. at 713-14.
Rice, 463 U.S. at 714.
Rice, 463 U.S. at 735 (Blackmun, J., dissenting) (internal citation omitted).
Rice, 463 U.S. at 743 (Blackmun, J., dissenting).

External links

Text of Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983) is available from: Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.

[1] Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983).

[2] 18 U.S.C. § 1161.

[3] Rehner v. Rice, 678 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir. 1982).

[4] Rice, 463 U.S. at 713-14.

[5] Rice, 463 U.S. at 714.

[6] Rice, 463 U.S. at 735 (Blackmun, J., dissenting) (internal citation omitted).

[7] Rice, 463 U.S. at 743 (Blackmun, J., dissenting).