18 U.S.C. § 1161
Application of Indian liquor laws
The provisions of sections 1154, 1156, 3113, 3488, and 3669, of this title, shall not apply within any area that is not Indian country, nor to any act or transaction within any area of Indian country provided such act or transaction is in conformity both with the laws of the State in which such act or transaction occurs and with an ordinance duly adopted by the tribe having jurisdiction over such area of Indian country, certified by the Secretary of the Interior, and published in the Federal Register.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 68
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1954–2022 · leading case: Bittle v. Bahe
Bittle v. Bahe (2008)
“T6 The Court of Civil Appeals concluded that by enacting 18 U.S.C. § 1161 , 3 Congress did not clearly and expressly authorize suits against Indian tribes for violations of state alcoholic beverage laws and did not clearly and expressly waive tribal sovereign immunity from suit…”
Rice v. Rehner (1983)
“The District Court granted the State's motion to dismiss, ruling that Rehner was required to have a state license under 18 U. S. C. § 1161 , which provides that liquor transactions in Indian country are not subject to prohibition under federal law provided those transactions are…”
John v. Furry v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida (2012)
“Furry complained that the Miccosukee Tribe violated 18 U.S.C. § 1161 and Florida’s dram shop law by knowingly serving excessive amounts of alcohol to his daughter, who then got in her car, drove off while intoxicated, and ended up in a fatal head-on collision with another…”
Foxworthy v. Puyallup Tribe of Indians Ass'n (2007)
“Though acknowledging that there has been no explicit waiver of tribal sovereign immunity from private actions under state dram shop laws, Foxworthy argues that Congress implicitly waived tribal sovereign immunity from such private actions when it promulgated 18 U.S.C. § 1161 .…”
Sheffer v. Buffalo Run Casino, PTE, Inc. (2013)
“2d 961 (1983), in conjunction with 18 U.S.C. § 1161 , abrogated any tribal immunity from suit in the area of alcoholic beverage laws.”
Holguin Exrel. Rubio v. Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo (1997)
“We answer in the affirmative, and conclude that: • the State of Texas created the Texas Dram Shop Act (the Act) pursuant to its police power to regulate the use of alcohol; • under 18 U.S.C. § 1161 and Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.”
United States v. Mazurie (1975)
“As a second basis for reversal, the court held that insofar as 18 U. S. C. § 1161 authorized Indian tribes to adopt ordinances controlling the introduction by non-Indians of alcoholic beverages onto non-Indian land, it was an invalid congressional attempt to delegate authority.”
Brackeen v. Haaland (2021)
“713, 730-31 (1983) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1161 ) (examining the same statute challenged in Mazurie).”
Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Gerlach (2017)
“§ 35-2-24 tax remittance requirement violates 18 U.S.C. § 1161 (Claim for Relief Eight).”
Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Kristi Noem (2019)
“onmembers on reservation land is preempted by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”) because all activity under the Royal River Casino name is “gaming activity”; (ii) that the use tax remittance requirement infringes inherent tribal sovereignty and violates federal common…”
The Squaxin Island Tribe v. The State of Washington (1986)
“Each tribe enacted a tribal liquor ordinance authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 1161 1 and established a tribal liquor enterprise.”
Cossey v. Cherokee Nation Enterprises, LLC (2009)
“In Oklahoma's statutory model tribal gaming compact, the Indian tribes consent to be sued for damages resulting from a tribe's tortious activity related to the operation of its gambling casino and nothing in the compact alters the common law rights and remedies available to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.