King Mountain Tobacco Co. v. McKenna, No. 13-35360 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseKing Mountain and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation filed suit against the Attorney General for declaratory and injunctive relief from Washington's escrow statute, Wash. Rev. Code 70.157.005-70.157.030, which requires King Mountain to place money into escrow to reimburse the State for health care costs related to the use of tobacco products. The district court granted summary judgment for the state. The court affirmed, concluding that Washington's escrow statute is a nondiscriminatory law and King Mountain's activities are largely off-reservation; the plain text of the Yakama Treaty does not create a federal exemption from Washington's escrow statute; and the district court did not err by declining to make findings regarding the Treaty's meaning to the Yakama people at the time of its signing because the meaning of the Yakama people cannot overcome the clear words of the Treaty.
Court Description: Indian Law. Affirming the district court’s summary judgment, the panel held that the Yakama Treaty of 1855 did not preclude enforcement of the State of Washington’s escrow statute, which requires tobacco companies to place money from cigarette sales into escrow to reimburse the State for health care costs related to the use of tobacco products. The panel held that Washington’s escrow statute was a nondiscriminatory law and that the activities of King Mountain Tobacco Co., a company owned and operated by an enrolled member of the Yakama Indian Nation, were largely off-reservation. Accordingly, absent express federal law to the contrary, King Mountain was subject to the escrow statute. The panel held that the plain text of the Yakama Treaty did not create a federal exemption from the escrow statute. Specifically, Article II of the Treaty, which established the boundaries of the Yakama reservation and reserved it for Yakama use and benefit, was not an express federal law that exempted King Mountain from the escrow statute. Nor was Article III, which reserved to the tribe the right to travel on public highways and the right to hunt and fish. The panel held that the district court did not err by declining to make findings regarding the Treaty’s meaning to the Yakama people at the time of its signing because the meaning to the Yakama people could not overcome the clear words of the Treaty.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.