ambiguities in the Act in favor of the Tribe, the Court finds that the language of the Act does not show that Congress consented to taxation of the Indian reservations.... Congress must be explicit if it intends to grant states the power to tax within Indian country, and ... the Court finds Hayden-Cartwright does not provide for an explicit grant of Congressional authority for state taxation of motor fuel delivered to Indian reservations[.]”); Pourier v. South Dakota Dep’t of Revenue, 658 N.W.2d 395, 399 (S.D.2003), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2400, 158 L.Ed.2d 965 (2004) (“The language of the statute does not make Congress’ intention to allow such taxation ‘unmistakably clear.’ ”), vacated, in part, on other grounds by 674 N.W.2d 314; Goodman Oil, 28 P.3d at 1001-02 (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1129, 122 S.Ct. 1068,
holding that state of south dakota does not have criminal jurisdiction over indians in indian country holding that the haydencartwright act does not apply to indian reservations and that the states tax was therefore unconstitutional as applied to indians holding that indian tribes could only exercise criminal jurisdiction over tribal members and not other indians recognizing the inherent power of indian tribes  to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all indians holding that the kansas act unambiguously confers jurisdiction on kansas to prosecute all offenses  major and minor  committed by or against indians on indian reservations in accordance with state law