Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/332

 546US1

Unit: $U11

[08-22-08 15:19:53] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 546 U. S. 95 (2005)

121

Ginsburg, J., dissenting

sional authorization.” 515 U. S., at 459. This “bright-line standard,” id., at 460, is sensitive to the sovereign status of Indian tribes, and reﬂects the Court’s recognition that “tribal sovereignty is dependent on, and subordinate to, only the Federal Government, not the States.” Colville, 447 U. S., at 154.5 When a State places the legal incidence of its tax on nonIndians, however, no similarly overt disrespect for a tribe’s independence and dignity is displayed. In cases of this genre, Chickasaw Nation recognized, the Court has resisted adoption of a categorical rule. In lieu of attributing disposi­ tive signiﬁcance to the legal incidence, the Court has focused on the particular levy, and has evaluated the federal, state, and tribal interests at stake. 515 U. S., at 459; see Cotton Petroleum, 490 U. S., at 176 (Instead of a “mechanical or ab­ solute” test, the Court has “applied a ﬂexible pre-emption analysis sensitive to the particular facts and legislation in­ volved. Each case ‘requires a particularized examination of the relevant state, federal, and tribal interests.’ ” (quoting Ramah, 458 U. S., at 838)). Chickasaw Nation did observe that “if a State is unable to enforce a tax because the legal incidence of the impost is on Indians or Indian tribes, the State generally is free to amend its law to shift the tax’s legal incidence.” 515 U. S., at 460. Kansas took the cue. After our decision in Chickasaw Nation, Kansas amended its fuel tax statute to state that “the incidence of this tax is imposed on the distrib­ utor.” Kan. Stat. Ann. § 79–3408(c) (2003 Cum. Supp.); see 1998 Kan. Sess. Laws, ch. 96, § 2, pp. 450–451; see also Kaul 5

The standard also accords with our repeated admonition that a State may not “unlawfully infringe ‘on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them.’ ” White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U. S. 136, 142 (1980) (quoting Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S. 217, 220 (1959)). Accord Mescalero II, 462 U. S., at 332–333; McClanahan v. Arizona Tax Comm’n, 411 U. S. 164, 171–172 (1973).