Antoine v. Washington

Last updated
Antoine v. Washington
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued December 16, 1974
Decided February 19, 1975
Full case nameAlexander J. Antoine, et ux. v. State of Washington
Citations420 U.S. 194 ( more )
95 S. Ct. 944; 43 L. Ed. 2d 129
Argument Oral argument
Case history
PriorState v. Antoine, 511 P.2d 1351 (Wash. 1973)
Holding
1. Treaties and laws must not be construed to the prejudice of Native Americans (Indians).

2. The Supremacy Clause precludes the application of state game laws to the tribe.

Contents

3. Congress showed no intent to subject the tribe to state jurisdiction for hunting.

4. While the state can regulate non-Indians in the ceded area, Indians must be exempted from such regulations.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William O. Douglas  · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
Case opinions
MajorityBrennan, joined by Burger, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell
ConcurrenceDouglas
DissentRehnquist, joined by Stewart
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. VI, § 2

Antoine v. Washington, 420 U.S. 194 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that treaties and laws must be construed in favor of Native Americans (Indians); that the Supremacy Clause precludes the application of state game laws to the tribe; that Congress showed no intent to subject the tribe to state jurisdiction for hunting; and while the state can regulate non-Indians in the ceded area, Indians must be exempted from such regulations.

Background

Colville Reservation Lebensraum der Spokane Indianer.png
Colville Reservation

History

The Colville Indian Reservation was established in the north-central part of Washington for members of twelve different tribes of Indians. These tribes were the Chelan, Colville, the Entiat, the Methow, the Nespelem, the Nez Perce of Chief Joseph's Band, the southern Okanagan, the Palus, the Sanpoil, the Sinixt (or "Lakes"), the Sinkiuse-Columbia, and the Wenatchi. The reservation was originally created 1872 by a series of Executive Orders issued by President Ulysses S. Grant and stretched from the Columbia River on the south to the Canada–US border on the north. [1] In 1887, the Dawes Act was passed and the federal government looked at allotting the land on the reservation.

In 1891, an agreement was reached with the tribe that they would cede the northern half of the reservation to the government. [2] As part of the terms of the agreement, Indians in the northern half who did not wish to move to the southern half would be given 80 acres of land. In addition, the United States agreed to pay $1,500,000 to the tribe and the tribe reserved hunting and fishing rights on the ceded land. [3] In 1892, Congress passed an act removing the northern half from tribal jurisdiction, but not implementing all of the agreement. [4] The payment to the tribe was not initially made, but was eventually paid fourteen years later.

Lower courts

Alexander Antoine was an enrolled member of the Colville Confederated Tribes. In 1971, Antoine and his wife Irene [fn 1] were hunting on the northern half of the former reservation and were cited for hunting deer during a closed season. [5] The Antoines were convicted of hunting and possessing a deer during a closed season in Superior Court. [6] After the conviction, the tribe took up their defense and appealed to the Washington Supreme Court.

At the Washington Supreme Court the tribe and the Antoines argued that Article 6 of the 1891 agreement reserved to tribal members the right to hunt and fish in the ceded northern portion of the reservation. [7] The state of Washington argued that the agreement was not a treaty, but a mere contract. [fn 2] [9] While a treaty was "the supreme law of the land" under the Supremacy Clause, a contract was not, and a contract could not bind someone who was not a party to the contract. [10] Since the state of Washington was not a party to the contract, it could not be bound by the contract and could exercise its police power to regulate hunting and fishing. [11] The court affirmed the convictions. [12] The tribe then appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and it granted certiorari . [13]

Supreme Court

Justice Brennan, author of the majority opinion US Supreme Court Justice William Brennan - 1976 official portrait.jpg
Justice Brennan, author of the majority opinion

Arguments

The Antoines were represented by Mason D. Morisset of Seattle. Morisset first argued that treaties, laws, and agreements with Indian tribes must be construed in the tribe's favor, according to the Indian canon of construction. [14] Second, when lands are set aside for Indians, the tribe retains hunting and fishing rights unless they are specifically removed, and when the text is silent, the hunting and fishing rights remain, citing Menominee Tribe v. United States . [15] Third, on reservation lands, the state has no authority to regulate hunting. [16] Fourth, the 1891 agreement is covered by the Supremacy Clause because Congress enacted a federal statute relating to Indians, which is binding on the states. [17]

The state was represented by Joseph Lawrence Coniff, Jr., Assistant Attorney General for Washington. The state argued that since the federal government could not enter into a treaty with the Colville tribe, the Supremacy Clause did not apply. [18] Further, the 1891 agreement was a contract, not a treaty, and as a contract could not bind the state since the state was not a party to the contract. [19] Since the northern half was returned to the public domain, Washington had the authority to regulate hunting on the land. [20]

The United States, through Solicitor General Robert Bork filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the position of the Antoines and the tribe. [21]

Opinion of the Court

Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. delivered the opinion of the court. [fn 3] Brennan began by following Morisset's argument that the Indian canon governed, that agreements must be construed in favor of the tribe, noting that this has been law for over 150 years. [23] Brennan next noted the fallacy of the lower courts position on the Supremacy Clause and the agreement with the tribe. He noted that once Congress passed a statute implementing the agreement, it was law and the Supremacy Clause applied. [24] All the 1871 law did was change the method of dealing with the tribes, but a federal law still governed. [25] Brennan then noted that even though the statute did not explicitly state it reserved hunting and fishing rights for the Indians, it must be construed in that manner since the agreement stated that the rights "shall not be taken away or in anywise abridged." [26] The court reversed the lower court. [27]

Concurrence

Justice Rehnquist, author of the dissenting opinion William Rehnquist.jpg
Justice Rehnquist, author of the dissenting opinion

Justice William O. Douglas concurred in the opinion. Douglas summed it up clearly when he said "We have here only an issue involving the power of a State to impose a regulatory restraint upon a right which Congress bestowed on these Indians. Such an assertion of state power must fall by reason of the Supremacy Clause." [28]

Dissent

Justice William Rehnquist dissented. Rehnquist stated that the Washington hunting regulations and laws could only be affected by a treaty or a statute, not by an agreement between the United States and a tribe. [29] Although the ratifying or enabling act passed, authorizing monies to pay for the land, there was no language in the act about hunting or fishing rights, nor about any of the other twelve articles of the agreement. [30] Rehnquist noted that in every other case where the court held that the congressional act ratified an agreement, Congress had included the language of the agreement in the law. [31]

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Irene was also an Indian, but from a Canadian tribe, and was not enrolled in the Colville tribe.
  2. ↑ In 1871, Congress had passed a law prohibiting the making of further treaties with the tribes. [8]
  3. ↑ Brennan reportedly balked at writing the opinion, believing that it was unimportant. [22]

Related Research Articles

Tribal sovereignty in the United States Type of political status of Native Americans

Tribal sovereignty in the United States is the concept of the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States. Originally, the U.S. federal government recognized American Indian tribes as independent nations, and came to policy agreements with them via treaties. As the U.S. accelerated its westward expansion, internal political pressure grew for "Indian removal", but the pace of treaty-making grew nevertheless. Then the Civil War forged the U.S. into a more centralized and nationalistic country, fueling a "full bore assault on tribal culture and institutions", and pressure for Native Americans to assimilate. In the Indian Appropriations Act of 1871, without any input from Native Americans, Congress prohibited any future treaties. This move was steadfastly opposed by Native Americans. Currently, the U.S. recognizes tribal nations as "domestic dependent nations" and uses its own legal system to define the relationship between the federal, state, and tribal governments.

Colville Indian Reservation Indian reservation in Washington, United States

The Colville Indian Reservation is an Indian reservation in the northwest United States, in north central Washington, inhabited and managed by the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, which is federally recognized.

United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312, aff'd, 520 F.2d 676, commonly known as the Boldt Decision, was a legal case in 1974 heard in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case re-affirmed the rights of American Indian tribes in the state of Washington to co-manage and continue to harvest salmon and other fish under the terms of various treaties with the U.S. government. The tribes ceded their land to the United States but reserved the right to fish as they always had. This included their traditional locations off the designated reservations.

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that Article One of the U.S. Constitution did not give the United States Congress the power to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states that is further protected under the Eleventh Amendment. Such abrogation is permitted where it is necessary to enforce the rights of citizens guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment as per Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer. The case also held that the doctrine of Ex parte Young, which allows state officials to be sued in their official capacity for prospective injunctive relief, was inapplicable under these circumstances, because any remedy was limited to the one that Congress had provided.

Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area

Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area is a U.S. national recreation area that encompasses the 130-mile (210 km) long Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake between Grand Coulee Dam and Northport, Washington, in eastern Washington state. The Grand Coulee Dam was built on the Columbia River in 1941 as part of the Columbia River Basin project. Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area is a unit of the National Park Service and provides opportunities for fishing, swimming, canoeing, boating, hunting, camping, and visiting historic Fort Spokane and St. Paul's Mission. Crescent Bay Lake in Grant County just southwest of Lake Roosevelt also falls under the jurisdiction of the National Recreation Area.

Coeur dAlene War

The Coeur d'Alene War of 1858, also known as the Spokane-Coeur d'Alene-Pend d'oreille-Paloos War, was the second phase of the Yakima War, involving a series of encounters between the allied Native American tribes of the Skitswish, Kalispell, Spokane, Palouse and Northern Paiute against United States Army forces in Washington and Idaho.

Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court concluded that Indian tribes could not prosecute Indians who were members of other tribes for crimes committed by those nonmember Indians on their reservations. The decision was not well received by the tribes, because it defanged their criminal codes by depriving them of the power to enforce them against anyone except their own members. In response, Congress amended a section of the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1301, to include the power to "exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians" as one of the powers of self-government.

United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that: 1) the enactment by Congress of a law allowing the Sioux Nation to pursue a claim against the United States that had been previously adjudicated did not violate the doctrine of separation of powers; and 2) the taking of property that was set aside for the use of the tribe required just compensation, including interest. The Sioux have not accepted the compensation awarded to them by this case, valued at over $1 billion as of 2011.

United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886), was a United States Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act of 1885. This Congressional act gave the federal courts jurisdiction in certain cases of Indian-on-Indian crimes, even if the crimes were committed on an Indian reservation. Kagama, a Yurok Native American (Indian) accused of murder, was selected as a test case by the Department of Justice to test the constitutionality of the Act.

Treaty Clause Clause of the U.S. Constitution granting the President the power to negotiate treaties, which the Senate must ratify

The Treaty Clause is the second clause of Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the procedure for ratification of international agreements. It empowers the President of the United States as the primary negotiator of agreements between the United States and other countries, which, upon receiving the advice and consent of a two-thirds supermajority of the Senate, become binding with the force of federal law.

United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734 (1986), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that, pursuant to the Eagle Protection Act, American Indians were prohibited from hunting eagles. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote the unanimous opinion of the Court.

United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court landmark case which held that both the United States and a Native American (Indian) tribe could prosecute an Indian for the same acts that constituted crimes in both jurisdictions. The Court held that the United States and the tribe were separate sovereigns; therefore, separate tribal and federal prosecutions did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Menominee Tribe v. United States, 391 U.S. 404 (1968), is a case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Menominee Indian Tribe kept their historical hunting and fishing rights even after the federal government ceased to recognize the tribe. It was a landmark decision in Native American case law.

South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress specifically abrogated treaty rights with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe as to hunting and fishing rights on reservation lands that were acquired for a reservoir.

Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States holding that an Indian tribe has the authority to impose taxes on non-Indians that are conducting business on the reservation as an inherent power under their tribal sovereignty.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife v. Klamath Indian Tribe, 473 U.S. 753 (1985), was a case appealed to the US Supreme Court by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Supreme Court reversed the previous decisions in the District Court and the Court of Appeals stating that the exclusive right to hunt, fish, and gather roots, berries, and seeds on the lands reserved to the Klamath Tribe by the 1864 Treaty was not intended to survive as a special right to be free of state regulation in the ceded lands that were outside the reservation after the 1901 Agreement.

Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Sac & Fox Nation, 508 U.S. 114 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that absent explicit congressional direction to the contrary, it must be presumed that a State does not have jurisdiction to tax tribal members who live and work in Indian country, whether the particular territory consists of a formal or informal reservation, allotted lands, or dependent Indian communities.

Seymour v. Superintendent of Wash. State Penitentiary, 368 U.S. 351 (1962), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States that the state of Washington did not have jurisdiction to try an Indian for a crime committed within the boundaries of the Colville Indian Reservation, even if the crime was committed on land now owned by a non-Indian.

Idaho v. United States, 533 U.S. 262 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the United States, not the state of Idaho, held title to lands submerged under Lake Coeur d'Alene and the St. Joe River, and that the land was held in trust for the Coeur d'Alene Tribe as part of its reservation, and in recognition of the importance of traditional tribal uses of these areas for basic food and other needs.

United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634 (1978), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that lands designated as a reservation in Mississippi are "Indian country" as defined by statute, although the reservation was established nearly a century after Indian removal and related treaties. The court ruled that, under the Major Crimes Act, the State has no jurisdiction to try a Native American for crimes covered by that act that occurred on reservation land.

References

  1. ↑ 1 Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties 915-16 (Charles J. Kappler ed. 1904).
  2. ↑ Alvin J. Ziontz, A Lawyer in Indian Country: A Memoir 139-40 (2009); Rowland L. Young, Supreme Court Report, 61 A.B.A.J. 1532 (Dec. 1975).
  3. ↑ Ziontz, at 139-40.
  4. ↑ Act of July 1, 1892, 27  Stat.   62; Kappler, Vol. 1 at 441.
  5. ↑ Antoine v. Washington, 420 U.S. 194, 195-96 (1975); Ziontz, at 139-40.
  6. ↑ Colville Tribe: Control of Indian Hunting Said Illegal by High Court, Spokane Daily Chron., Feb. 20, 1975, at 5.
  7. ↑ State v. Antoine, 511 P.2d 1351, 1352-53 (Wash. 1973), rev'd 420 U.S. 194 (1975).
  8. ↑ Act of Mar. 3, 1871, 16  Stat.   566, codified at 25 U.S.C.   § 71; Kappler, Vol. 1 at 8.
  9. ↑ Antoine, 511 P.2d at 1354; Ziontz, at 140; Young, at 1532.
  10. ↑ Antoine, 511 P.2d at 1354; Ziontz, at 140; Colville Tribe, Spokane Daily Chron., at 5.
  11. ↑ Antoine, 511 P.2d at 1354-56; Ziontz, at 140.
  12. ↑ Antoine, 511 P.2d at 1359; Ziontz, at 140; Young, at 1532; Colville Tribe, Spokane Daily Chron., at 5.
  13. ↑ Ziontz, at 140.
  14. ↑ Br. of Antoine, 1974 WL 185799, at *8.
  15. ↑ Menominee Tribe v. United States , 391 U.S. 404 (1968); Br. of Antoine, at *8.
  16. ↑ Br. of Antoine, at *8.
  17. ↑ Br. of Antoine, at *8.
  18. ↑ Br. of Washington, 1974 WL 185800, at *8-9.
  19. ↑ Br. of Washington, at *8-9.
  20. ↑ Br. of Washington, at *8-9.
  21. ↑ Br. of United States, 1974 WL 185802, at *1.
  22. ↑ Vine Deloria, Jr. & David E. Wilkins , Tribes, Treaties, and Constitutional Tribulations 54 (2010).
  23. ↑ Antoine, 420 U.S. at 199.
  24. ↑ Antoine, 420 U.S. at 200-02; Ralph W. Johnson & Berrie Martinis, Chief Justice Rehnquist and the Indian Cases, 16 Pub. Land L. Rev. 1, 20 (1995); Young, at 1532; Colville Tribe, Spokane Daily Chron., at 5.
  25. ↑ Antoine, 420 U.S. at 202; Johnson, at 20; Young, at 1532; Colville Tribe, Spokane Daily Chron., at 5.
  26. ↑ Antoine, 420 U.S. at 206; Young, at 1532.
  27. ↑ Antoine, 420 U.S. at 208; Johnson, at 20; Young, at 1532.
  28. ↑ Antoine, 420 U.S. at 212 (Douglas, J. concurring); Young, at 1532.
  29. ↑ Antoine, 420 U.S. at 213 (Rehnquist, J. dissenting).
  30. ↑ Antoine, 420 U.S. at 213-14 (Rehnquist, J. dissenting); Johnson, at 20; Young, at 1532; Colville Tribe, Spokane Daily Chron., at 5.
  31. ↑ Antoine, 420 U.S. at 214-15 (Rehnquist, J. dissenting); Johnson, at 20.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.