The U.S. Supreme Court case Montana, et al. v. Crow Tribe of Indians et al., 1997 revolved around a dispute over coal taxation on tribal lands in the state of Montana. The Crow Tribe had signed an agreement with Westmoreland Resources that allowed the company to mine coal from their reservation land and required them to pay taxes directly to the tribe for this privilege. However, Montana also imposed its own tax on any coal extracted within its borders, including those mined from reservations like that of the Crow Tribe's. The central issue was whether or not it was constitutional for both entities -the state and tribe- to impose separate taxes on Westmoreland Resources' mining operations simultaneously; essentially double-taxing them. In a unanimous decision by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court ruled against Montana stating that under federal law (Indian Mineral Leasing Act), tribes have exclusive rights to tax non-tribal members conducting business such as mining on their reservations unless Congress explicitly authorizes states otherwise which they hadn't done so here.

In the dissenting opinion for Montana, et al. v. Crow Tribe of Indians et al., Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with precedent and failed to respect tribal sovereignty. She contended that the Court had previously recognized tribes' inherent authority over their lands and resources, including taxing power, but now it was undermining this principle by invalidating a tax imposed by the Crow Tribe on coal mined on its reservation. According to her view, there were no valid legal or policy reasons for such an abrupt shift in jurisprudence; instead, she believed it reflected a lack of understanding or appreciation for tribal self-governance and economic development efforts. Furthermore, she criticized the majority's reliance on non-binding administrative interpretations while ignoring Congress’s intent behind relevant statutes supporting tribal taxation rights.