American Indian Sovereignty and the U.S. Supreme Court

by David E. Wilkins

  189. Philp, ed., Indian Self-Rule, 154.

  190. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Petition for Certiorari,” 1.

  191. 23 St. 24 (1884).

  192. 26 St. 1095, 1101 (1891).

  193. 31 St. 321 (1900).

  194. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Petition for Certiorari,” 2.

  195. 49 St. 1250 (1936).

  196. Angie Debo, A History of the Indians of the United States (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1989), 387.

  197. Ibid.

  198. U.S. House, Committee on Agriculture, Authorizing Secretary of Agriculture to sell Timber Within Tongass National Forest, House Report No. 873, 80th Cong., 1st sess. (1947), 1.

  199. Ibid., 2.

  200. Ibid.

  201. Ibid., 3.

  202. 61 St. 920 (1947).

  203. Felix S. Cohen, “Alaska’s Nuremberg Laws: Congress Sanctions Racial Discrimination,” Commentary 6 (Aug. 1948): 136–143.

  204. Ibid., 136.

  205. 61 St. 920 (1947).

  206. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Claims by James Craig Peacock, Counsel for Petitioning Tee-Hit-Ton Indians.”

  207. 128 Ct. Cl. 82, 99.

  208. Ibid., 85.

  209. Ibid., 87.

  210. “Petition for Writ” (J. C. Peacock), 10.

  211. Ibid.

  212. Ibid., 11.

  213. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Memorandum for the United States,” 9–10.

  214. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Brief of the Attorney General of Idaho, Amicus Curiae,” 2.

  215. Ibid.

  216. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Brief on behalf of the State of New Mexico as Amicus Curiae,” 3.

  217. 348 U.S. 272–274.

  218. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law, 404.

  219. Ibid.

  220. 49 St. 1250 (1936).

  221. 348 U.S. 275–276 (1955).

  222. Ibid., 272, 277.

  223. Ibid.

  224. Ibid.

  225. Ibid., 278.

  226. Ibid., 279.

  227. Ibid.

  228. U.S., Public Papers of the President, Harry Truman (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1962), 414.

  229. See especially Worcester v. Georgia, 131 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832) and Mitchel v. United States, 34 U.S. (9 Pet.) 711 (1835).

  230. 348 U.S. 272, 281.

  231. Ibid., 281–282.

  232. 329 U.S. 40 (1946).

  233. Ibid., 47.

  234. Ibid.

  235. Ibid.

  236. Ibid., 52–53 n. 30.

  237. Felix S. Cohen, “Original Indian Title,” in Lucy Cohen, ed., The Legal Conscience: Selected Papers of Felix S. Cohen (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960), 301.

  238. Ibid., 303.

  239. 329 U.S. 40, 58 (1946).

  240. 337 U.S. 86 (1949).

  241. Ibid., 106 n. 28.

  242. 348 U.S. 272, 283 n. 16.

  243. Ibid., n. 17.

  244. Ibid., 285.

  245. Ibid., 287.

  246. Ibid.

  247. Ibid., 288 n. 20.

  248. Ibid., 289.

  249. Ibid., 288–289.

  250. Ibid., 289–290.

  251. Ibid., 290.

  252. Ibid., 290–291.

  253. Wunder, Retained by the People, 117.

  254. 348 U.S. 272, 292.

  255. Ibid., 294.

  256. Nell Jessup Newton, “At the Whim of the Sovereign: Aboriginal Title Reconsidered,” Hastings Law Journal 31 (July 1980): 1216–1217.

  257. Lurie, “The Indian Claims Commission” (1957), 64–65.

  258. 131 Ct. Cl. 593.

  259. Wunder, Retained by the People, 117.

  260. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Petition for Rehearing,” by James C. Peacock, Counsel for Tee-Hit-Ton Band, 1.

  261. 85 St. 688. ANCSA was one of the most complex laws ever enacted by Congress in an effort to address tribal and national interests where they intersected and overlapped. Under the act, private native corporations were established to receive title to 44 million acres of land; village corporations gained title to 22 million acres; and 16 million acres went to eleven of the twelve regional native corporations that were established. In addition, 962.5 million dollars was paid out as compensation to the Alaskan natives for extinguishment of all aboriginal claims. For readings about some of the difficulties Alaskan natives have encountered in securing their rights under the law, see Gary C. Anders, “The Alaska Native Experience with the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act,” in P. A. Olson, ed., The Struggle for the Land (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1990), 127–145.

  CHAPTER 5

  1. See Alvin M. Josephy, Red Power: The American Indian Fight for Freedom (New York: American Heritage Press, 1971); Vine Deloria Jr., “The Next Three Years: A Time for Change,” The Indian Historian 7 (Winter 1974): 25–27, 53; and Emma R. Gross, Contemporary Federal Indian Policy Toward American Indians (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1989).

  2. See especially Richard Nixon’s “Special Message on Indian Affairs,” July 8, 1970, in U.S., Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Richard Nixon, 1970 (Washington: Government Printing Office), 564–567, 575–576.

  3. See especially the act which returned the Blue Lake Lands to Taos Pueblo, 1970 (84 St. 1437); Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 1971 (85 St. 688); Indian Education Act 1972 (86 St. 335); Restoration of the Menominee Tribe 1973 (87 St. 700); Indian Financing Act 1974 (88 St. 77); Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 1975 (88 St. 2203); Act Establishing the American Indian Policy Review Commission 1975 (88 St. 1910); Indian Health Care Improvement Act 1976 (90 St. 1400); and American Indian Religious Freedom Resolution 1978 (92 St. 469).

  4. See especially United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 343 (1974), which involved Indian fishing rights; Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 541 (1974), which involved Indian preference regulations; and Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, 388 F. Supp. 654 (1975), which involved tribal recognition and Indian land claims.

  5. Petra Shattuck and Jill Norgren, “Indian Rights: The Cost of Justice,” The Nation 227 (July 22–29, 1978): 71.

  6. Emma R. Gross, Contemporary Federal Policy Toward American Indians (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1989), 87.

  7. Russel L. Barsh and James Y. Henderson, The Road (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980), 290.

  8. Richard Jones, “American Indian Policy: Background, Nature, History, Current Issues, Future Trends,” U.S., Congressional Research Service Report for Congress No. 87–227 (Washington: Library of Congress, 1987), 32.

  9. Ibid.

  10. 88 St. 2203 (1975).

  11. Ibid., 2204.

  12. Deloria & Lytle, American Indians, 23.

  13. 88 St. 1910 (1975).

  14. Prucha, The Great Father, 383.

  15. Deloria & Lytle, American Indians, 24.

  16. U.S. Congress, Final Report: American Indian Policy Review Commission (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1977), 571.

  17. Ibid., 573.

  18. Ibid., 585.

  19. 544 F.2d 1007 (1976).

  20. U.S. Congress, Final Report, 587.

  21. Ibid.

  22. Ibid.

  23. Suquamish population in 1994 had risen sharply to approximately 780 enrolled members. See “Suquamish,” in Mary B. Davis, ed., Native America in the Twentieth Century: An Encyclopedia (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1994), 620.

  24. 435 U.S. 191, 193 n. 1.

  25. 12 St. 927 (1855).

  26. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Brief for Petitioners,” 12.

  27. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Brief of Respondents to Petition for Writ of Certiorari,” 8.

  28. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Petition for Certiorari—Appendix,” 30.

  29. Ibid., 50.

  30. Ibid.,
52.

  31. Belgarde’s appeal to the 9th Circuit Court was still pending when his case was accepted by the Supreme Court for review.

  32. 544 F.2d 1007 (1976).

  33. Ibid., 1009.

  34. Ibid.

  35. Ibid., n. 1.

  36. Ibid.

  37. Ibid., 1009.

  38. 12 St. 927.

  39. 33 St. 1078.

  40. 544 F.2d 1007, 1013.

  41. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Petition for a Writ of Certiorari,” 3.

  42. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Brief of Respondents in Opposition to Petition for a Writ of Certiorari,” 6.

  43. Ibid.

  44. Ibid., 5.

  45. In the mid-1970s, the Supreme Court began to print the oral arguments used by the contending lawyers before the bench. (See, for example, U.S., The Complete Oral Arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States: A Retrospective 1969 Term Through 1979 Term (Frederick, Md.: University Publications of America, Inc.) This is valuable because it details the oral arguments used by the attorneys, as well as the bantering back and forth between the justices and the attorneys. Typically, one hour is allotted for argument in a case, divided equally between the two sides. Unfortunately, the justices making the queries are usually not identified by name.

  46. U.S. The Complete Oral (1979 term), 36.

  47. Ibid., 36–37.

  48. Ibid., 63–64.

  49. Ibid., 66.

  50. Ibid., 43.

  51. Ibid., 45.

  52. Ibid., 46–47.

  53. Ibid., 13–14.

  54. Ibid.

  55. Sue Davis, “Rehnquist & State Courts: Federalism Revisited,” The Western Political Quarterly 45 (1992): 773.

  56. These phrases were coined by Paula Arledge and Anne M. McCulloch in a paper, “Indian Cases and the Modern Supreme Court: Problems in Consistent Interpretation in Extra-Constitutional Cases,” presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, November 8–10, 1990 (p. 20).

  57. 435 U.S. 191, 195–196 (1978).

  58. Rehnquist seems, however, to have a somewhat different view of what might be termed “internal sovereignty,” especially as it relates to intratribal matters and affairs. In a few rare cases, Rehnquist has affirmed a tribe’s right to exercise elements of sovereignty when the demographics are such that tribal members vastly outnumber nontribal inhabitants of Indian Country and the tribe is flexing a power that has been delegated to them by the federal government. See his opinion for the Court in U.S. v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544 (1975), for a clear example.

  59. United States, Department of the Interior, Opinions of the Solicitor, vol. 1, “Powers of Indian Tribes,” 55 I.D. 14 (1934) (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1974), 445–477.

  60. Ibid., 447.

  61. Ibid.

  62. Deloria & Lytle, The Nations Within, 158.

  63. U.S., Opinions of the Solicitor, “Powers of Indian Tribes,” 445.

  64. Ibid., 471.

  65. Ibid., 472.

  66. Ibid., 475–476.

  67. 82 St. 73, 77.

  68. See, e.g., Donald L. Burnette Jr., “An Historical Analysis of the 1968 ‘Indian Civil Rights Act,’” Harvard Journal of Legislation 9 (May 1972): 557–626; and Ralph W. Johnson and E. Susan Crystal, “Indians and Equal Protection,” Washington Law Review 54 (June 1979): 587–631.

  69. 435 U.S. 191, 195–196 n. 6.

  70. U.S. House, Committee on Indian Affairs, Regulating the Indian Department, House Report No. 474, 23d Cong., 1st sess. (1834), 18.

  71. 7 St. 333 (1830).

  72. 435 U.S. 191, 197.

  73. Ibid., 197–198.

  74. Russel L. Barsh and James Youngblood Henderson, “The Betrayal: Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe and the Hunting of the Snark,” Minnesota Law Review 63 (1979): 617.

  75. Ibid., 617–618.

  76. Ibid.

  77. 435 U.S. 191, 199 n. 8.

  78. Barsh & Henderson, “The Betrayal,” 620.

  79. Ibid.

  80. 14 F. Cas. 353 (1878).

  81. 112 U.S. 94, 108 (1884).

  82. 435 U.S. 191, 201 n. 11.

  83. Ibid.

  84. Ibid., 201.

  85. Robert A. Trennert Jr., Alternative to Extinction (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1975).

  86. 435 U.S. 191, 201.

  87. Ibid., 202.

  88. Ibid., n. 13.

  89. Ibid.

  90. U.S. House, Regulating the Indian Department (1834), 13.

  91. Ibid.

  92. 435 U.S. 191, 203.

  93. Ibid., 204.

  94. Ibid., 206.

  95. See especially Felix Cohen’s “Introduction” in Handbook of Federal Indian Law (1972 reprint ed.), and see Charles F. Wilkinson’s “Introduction” and Chapter I in American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy (New York: Yale University Press, 1987).

  96. 435 U.S. 191, 206.

  97. Ibid.

  98. 12 St. 927, article 9.

  99. 435 U.S. 191, 208.

  100. Ibid., 207.

  101. 544 F.2d 1007, 1010.

  102. 435 U.S. 191, 208.

  103. Ibid.

  104. 411 U.S. 164 (1973).

  105. 435 U.S. 191, 208.

  106. 544 F.2d 1007, 1009.

  107. 435 U.S. 191, 209.

  108. Ibid., 210

  109. Ibid.

  110. Barsh & Henderson, “The Betrayal,” 634.

  111. 109 U.S. 556 (1883).

  112. See especially Sidney L. Harring, Crow Dog’s Case: American Indian Sovereignty, Tribal Law, and United States Law in the Nineteenth Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), for a historical treatment of this important decision.

  113. 109 U.S. 556, 571 (1883).

  114. 435 U.S. 191, 211.

  115. Ibid., 211–212.

  116. Ibid.

  117. 435 U.S. 313 (1978).

  118. 436 U.S. 49 (1978).

  119. A lesser included offense is one “composed of some, but not all, of the elements of the greater crime, and which does not have any element not included in the greater offense.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed. (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1979).

  120. 435 U.S. 313, 322 (1978).

  121. Ibid., 323.

  122. Wilkinson, American Indians, Time, and the Law, 61.

  123. Ibid., 49

  124. U.S. Congressional Record (1978), 18480.

  125. Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe et al. v. Morton et al., 528 F.2d 370 (1975).

  126. Christopher Vecsey, “Introduction: The Issues Underlying Iroquois Land Claims,” in Christopher Vecsey and William A. Starna, eds., Iroquois Land Claims (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1988), 3.

  127. 94 St. 1785 (1980).

  128. New York Times, July 1, 1980, 1.

  129. Vine Deloria Jr., “Reflections on the Black Hills Claim,” Wicazo Sa Review 4 (Spring 1988): 33.

  130. 15 St. 17 (1867).

  131. U.S. House, Report of the Indian Peace Commission, Executive Document No. 97, 40th Cong., 2d sess. (January 7, 1868), 15–17, reprinted in Francis P. Prucha, ed., Documents of United States Indian Policy, 2d ed. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1990), 106.

  132. Ibid.

  133. 15 St. 635.

  134. Frank Pommersheim, “The Black Hills Case: On the Cusp of History,” Wicazo Sa Review 4 (Spring 1988): 19.

  135. U.S. Congressional Record (January 25, 1978), 836.

  136. Ibid.

  137. Ibid.

  138. Vine Deloria Jr., “The United States Has No Jurisdiction in Sioux Territory,” in Roxanne D. Ortiz, ed., The Great Sioux Nation: Sitting in Judgment on America (Berkeley: Moon Books, 1977), 142.

  139. 19 St. 254 (1877).

  140. Pommersheim, “The Black Hills Case,” 19.

  141. Deloria, “Indian Treaties: A Hundred Years Later,” Race Relations Reporter (March 1974):
31.

  142. See Thomas Biolsi, Organizing the Lakota: The Political Economy of the New Deal on the Pine Ridge and Rosebud Reservations (Tucson, Ariz.: University of Arizona Press, 1992).

  143. Ibid., 47.

  144. 41 St. 738 (1920).

  145. The bands were Rosebud, Pine Ridge, Cheyenne River, Lower Brule, and Crow Creek of South Dakota, Standing Rock of North and South Dakota, Santee of Nebraska, and Sioux of Fort Peck Reservation of Montana.

  146. See E. B. Smith, comp., Indian Tribal Claims: Decided in the Court of Claims of the United States, Briefed and Compiled to June 30, 1947, vol. 2 (Washington: University Publications of America, 1976), 282–373, which details each of the separate twenty-four petitions that appeared before the Court of Claims. The nature of these claims included the alleged failure of the United States to furnish educational facilities to Sioux children under Article 7 of the 1868 Treaty (C-531–1); the value of clothing alleged to be due and not furnished under Article 10 of the 1868 Treaty (C-531–2); the value of rations guaranteed to Sioux Indians by Article 10 of the 1868 Treaty (C-531–4); compensation for alleged failure of the United States to deliver cows and oxen for distribution to families and individuals who selected tracts of land and commenced farming (C-531–5); and the Black Hills case itself, which eclipsed in value all the other claims combined (C-531–7).

  And see the discussion of Ralph Case and his efforts on behalf of the Sioux in Edward Lazarus’s Black Hills/White Justice: The Sioux Nation Versus the United States, 1775 to the Present (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1991), Chapter 7, “The Black Hills Claim.”

  147. Lazarus, Black Hills/White Justice, 157.

  148. This occurred in C-531–11, C-531–18, C-531–19, C-531–21, C-531–23, and C-531–24. For example, in C-531–18, involving the Rosebud Sioux Indians, the Indians alleged illegal disbursements from their funds in the amount of $560,210.60. The Court’s judgment was for $547,347.60, but when “gratuitous offsets” (the total of sums paid to Indian tribes which were not mandated by law) by the government on behalf of the Indians were tallied, it was determined that the offsets totaled $547,347.60. In effect, the tribe’s net judgment was $0.00.

  The Court of Claims and the Indian Claims Commission had authority to deduct any money or property “given to, or funds expended gratuitously for, the benefit of the plaintiff tribe if the [Indian Claims] Commission found that the nature of the tribe’s claim and the entire course of dealings between the United States and the tribe warranted the offset.” The Court of Claims, however, authorized more offsets against judgments than the Indian Claims Commission. See Felix S. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law (Charlottesville, Va.: Michie, Bobbs-Merrill, 1982), 571–572.