546US1
Unit: $U11
[08-22-08 15:19:53] PAGES PGT: OPIN
Cite as: 546 U. S. 95 (2005)
115
Opinion of the Court
the competing sovereign . . . do not alter the concurrent na ture of the taxing authority”).6 B Finally, the Nation contends that the Kansas motor fuel tax is invalid notwithstanding the inapplicability of the interest-balancing test, because it “exempts from taxation fuel sold or delivered to all other sovereigns,” and is there fore impermissibly discriminatory. Brief for Respondent 17–20 (emphasis deleted); Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 79–3408(d)(1)– (2) (2003 Cum. Supp.). But the Nation is not similarly situ ated to the sovereigns exempted from the Kansas fuel tax. While Kansas uses the proceeds from its fuel tax to pay for a significant portion of the costs of maintaining the roads and bridges on the Nation’s reservation, including the main highway used by the Nation’s casino patrons, Kansas offers no such services to the several States or the Federal Govern ment. Moreover, to the extent Kansas fuel retailers bear the cost of the fuel tax, that burden falls equally upon all retailers within the State regardless of whether those retail ers are located on an Indian reservation. Accordingly, the Kansas motor fuel tax is not impermissibly discriminatory.
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the Kansas motor fuel tax is a nondiscriminatory tax imposed on an off reservation transaction between non-Indians. Accordingly, the tax is valid and poses no affront to the Nation’s sover eignty. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. It is so ordered. 6 These authorities also foreclose the Nation’s contention that the Kansas motor fuel tax is invalid, irrespective of the applicability of Bracker, 448 U. S. 136, because it interferes with the Nation’s right to self-government. See Brief for Respondent 45–47.
