Morton v. Mancari
Citation
417 U.S. 535 (1974). Supreme Court of the United States.
Facts
Non-Indian employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) challenged a longstanding federal policy giving employment preference to qualified Native Americans in filling BIA positions. They argued the preference was racial discrimination prohibited by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, which extended Title VII to the federal government.
Issue
Did the EEOA’s anti-discrimination provisions impliedly repeal the Indian preference in BIA hiring?
Holding
The Court held that the Indian preference was not repealed by the EEOA and that the preference did not constitute unlawful racial discrimination. It survived both the repeal question and the equal protection challenge.
Rule / Doctrine
Implied repeal: repeals by implication are disfavored. A later general statute does not impliedly repeal an earlier specific statute unless there is clear incompatibility or a manifest congressional intent to repeal. The EEOA is a general anti-discrimination statute; the Indian preference is specific legislation rooted in the unique political relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes. The specific controls over the general. On equal protection: the preference is political (tied to tribal sovereignty and the trust relationship), not racial, and is thus subject to rational basis review.
Significance
A landmark in both statutory interpretation (presumption against implied repeal; specific-over-general canon) and federal Indian law (the political/racial distinction for Indian classifications). It remains the leading case on why most federal Indian preferences survive equal protection challenge.