explicitly whether this is the correct interpretation of the Hayden-Cartwright Act. See Chickasaw Nation, 515 U.S. at 456-57, 115 S.Ct 2214 (“We decline to address this question of statutory interpretation” about whether “United States military or other reservations” includes "Indian reservations," because the government argued the point for the first time in its brief to the Supreme Court); White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracket, 448 U.S. 136, 151 n. 16, 100 S.Ct. 2578, 65 L.Ed.2d 665 (1980) (“We need not reach the more general question whether the Hayden-Cartwright Act applies to Indian reservations at all.”). Absent definitive guidance from the Supreme Court, we must decide this issue. 21 .But see In re State Motor Fuel Tax Liab. of A.G.E. Corp., 273 N.W.2d 737, 739 (S.D.1978) (<HOLDING>). 22 . Our nation’s aversion to state taxation
holding that the state did not have jurisdiction over crime committed on land held by the bureau of indian affairs for the use and benefit of a discrete indian community holding that an indian reservation was a federal area subject to the haydencartwright act but analyzing the tax as levied on a nonindian contractor doing work for the bureau of indian affairs on tribal land holding that a tribe had no property interest in the continued operation of a bureau of indian affairs office on the reservation holding that a nevada state court had no jurisdiction to entertain a civil action filed by a nonindian against an indian for events that occurred on indian land holding that state has no jurisdiction over civil suit by nonindian against indian where cause of action arises on indian reservation