Nebraska v. Parker

Last updated

Nebraska v. Parker
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued January 20, 2016
Decided March 22, 2016
Full case nameNebraska, et al., Petitioners v. Mitch Parker, et al.
Docket no. 14-1406
Citations577 U.S. ___ ( more )
136 S.Ct. 1072; 194 L. Ed. 2d 152; 84 USLW 4154
Argument Oral argument
Case history
PriorSmith v. Parker, 774 F.3d (8th Cir. 2014)
Holding
Congress's 1882 Act did not diminish the Omaha Indian Reservation. The disputed land is within the reservation's boundaries.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Case opinion
MajorityThomas, joined by unanimous

Nebraska v. Parker, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Congress's 1882 Act did not diminish the Omaha Indian Reservation. The disputed land is within the reservation's boundaries. [1] [2]

Contents

Background

In 2006, the Omaha Tribe "amended its Beverage Control Ordinance and sought to subject Pender retailers to the amended ordinance." The city and its retailers sued the Omaha Tribal Council members in their official capacities in federal district court. The suit challenged the ordinance and the tribe's ability to impose the ordinance on Pender retailers. Nebraska intervened on behalf of the petitioners, while the United States federal government intervened on behalf of the Omaha Tribal Council members. [1]

The District Court found that the 1882 Act did not diminish the Omaha Reservation. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.

Opinion of the Court

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas authored a unanimous decision, holding that the sale of lands authorized under the 1882 Act did not diminish the boundaries of the reservation. [1] The Court applied the test laid out Solem v. Bartlett , 465 U.S. 463 (1984). [3]

First, and most important, the Court looks for Congress' clear, expressed intent to diminish the reservation in the text of the statute. [4] For example, the Court would look for "[e]xplicit reference to cession or other language evidencing the present and total surrender of all tribal interests" or "an unconditional commitment from Congress to compensate the Indian tribe for its opened land." [5] The Court found no indication from the text of the 1882 Act that Congress intended to diminish the reservation. Instead, the language resembled similar legislation that merely opened up reservation land for non-Native settlement. [6]

Second, the Court may evaluate the circumstances surrounding the sale of land on the reservation and whether contemporaneous evidence demonstrates an understanding that the Act diminished the reservation. While the historical record was "mixed," it certainly did not "unequivocally reveal[s] a widely held, contemporaneous understanding that the affected reservation would shrink as a result of the proposed legislation" as required under Solem. [7]

Finally, and "to a lesser extent", the Court may examine the "demographic history" of the land (whether there is still a Native presence on the land in dispute) and the federal government's "treatment of the affected areas" in the years following enactment of the statute. Although the Tribe had been absent from the land in dispute for about 120 years and did not enforce its regulations or offer any services in the area, the demographic history could not overcome the lack of explicit intent to diminish the Tribe's reservation. [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian Reorganization Act</span> United States Law

The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of June 18, 1934, or the Wheeler–Howard Act, was U.S. federal legislation that dealt with the status of American Indians in the United States. It was the centerpiece of what has been often called the "Indian New Deal". The major goal was to reverse the traditional goal of cultural assimilation of Native Americans into American society and to strengthen, encourage and perpetuate the tribes and their historic Native American cultures in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pender, Nebraska</span> Village in and county seat of Thurston County, Nebraska, United States

Pender is a village in and the county seat of Thurston County, Nebraska, United States. On March 22, 2016, the United States Supreme Court resolved a disagreement as to whether Pender is located on the Omaha Indian Reservation, holding unanimously that "the disputed land is within the reservation’s boundaries." The predominantly European-American population was 1,115 at the 2020 census.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Whiteclay, Nebraska</span> Census-designated place in Nebraska, United States

Whiteclay is a census-designated place in Sheridan County, Nebraska, United States. The population was 10 at the 2010 census.

Nebraska Indian Community College (NICC) is a public tribal land-grant community college with three locations in Nebraska: Macy on the Omaha Tribe reservation, Santee on the Santee Sioux reservation, and the urban South Sioux City.

Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903), was a United States Supreme Court case brought against the US government by the Kiowa chief Lone Wolf, who charged that Native American tribes under the Medicine Lodge Treaty had been defrauded of land by Congressional actions in violation of the treaty.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Native American tribes in Nebraska</span>

Native American tribes in the U.S. state of Nebraska have been Plains Indians, descendants of succeeding cultures of indigenous peoples who have occupied the area for thousands of years. More than 15 historic tribes have been identified as having lived in, hunted in, or otherwise occupied territory within the current state boundaries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Omaha Reservation</span> Indian reservation in United States, Omaha

The Omaha Reservation of the federally recognized Omaha tribe is located mostly in Thurston County, Nebraska, with sections in neighboring Cuming and Burt counties, in addition to Monona County in Iowa. As of the 2020 federal census, the reservation population was 4,526. The tribal seat of government is in Macy. The villages of Rosalie, Pender and Walthill are located within reservation boundaries, as is the northernmost part of Bancroft. Due to land sales in the area since the reservation was established, Pender has disputed tribal jurisdiction over it, to which the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2016 that "the disputed land is within the reservation’s boundaries."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Winnebago Reservation</span> Indian reservation in United States, Winnebago

The Winnebago Reservation of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska is located in Thurston County, Nebraska, United States. The tribal council offices are located in the town of Winnebago. The villages of Emerson, south of First Street, as well as Thurston, are also located on the reservation. The reservation occupies northern Thurston County, Nebraska, as well as southeastern Dixon County and Woodbury County, Iowa, and a small plot of off-reservation land of southern Craig Township in Burt County, Nebraska. The other federally recognized Winnebago tribe is the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian country jurisdiction</span>

Indian country jurisdiction, or the extent which tribal powers apply to legal situations in the United States, has undergone many drastic shifts since the beginning of European settlement in America. Over time, federal statutes and Supreme Court rulings have designated more or less power to tribal governments, depending on federal policy toward Indians. Numerous Supreme Court decisions have created important precedents in Indian country jurisdiction, such as Worcester v. Georgia, Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe, Montana v. United States, and McGirt v. Oklahoma.

Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Indian country jurisdiction in the United States that decided that opening up reservation lands for settlement by non-Indians does not constitute the intent to diminish reservation boundaries. Therefore, reservation boundaries would not be diminished unless specifically determined through acts of Congress.

Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978), was a landmark case in the area of federal Indian law involving issues of great importance to the meaning of tribal sovereignty in the contemporary United States. The Supreme Court sustained a law passed by the governing body of the Santa Clara Pueblo that explicitly discriminated on the basis of sex. In so doing, the Court advanced a theory of tribal sovereignty that weighed the interests of tribes sufficient to justify a law that, had it been passed by a state legislature or Congress, would have almost certainly been struck down as a violation of equal protection.

Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state did not have the right to assess a tax on the property of a Native American (Indian) living on tribal land absent a specific Congressional grant of authority to do so.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal title in the United States</span> First country to recognize aboriginal title

The United States was the first jurisdiction to acknowledge the common law doctrine of aboriginal title. Native American tribes and nations establish aboriginal title by actual, continuous, and exclusive use and occupancy for a "long time." Individuals may also establish aboriginal title, if their ancestors held title as individuals. Unlike other jurisdictions, the content of aboriginal title is not limited to historical or traditional land uses. Aboriginal title may not be alienated, except to the federal government or with the approval of Congress. Aboriginal title is distinct from the lands Native Americans own in fee simple and occupy under federal trust.

Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556 (1883), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that followed the death of one member of a Native American tribe at the hands of another on reservation land. Crow Dog was a member of the Brulé band of the Lakota Sioux. On August 5, 1881 he shot and killed Spotted Tail, a Lakota chief; there are different accounts of the background to the killing. The tribal council dealt with the incident according to Sioux tradition, and Crow Dog paid restitution to the dead man's family. However, the U.S. authorities then prosecuted Crow Dog for murder in a federal court. He was found guilty and sentenced to hang.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Former Indian reservations in Oklahoma</span>

Both Oklahoma Territory and Indian Territory contained suzerain Indian nations that had legally established boundaries. The US federal government allotted collective tribal landholdings through the allotment process before the establishment of Oklahoma as a state in 1907. Tribal jurisdictional areas replaced the tribal governments, with the exception of the Osage Nation. As confirmed by the Osage Nation Reaffirmation Act of 2004, the Osage Nation retains mineral rights to their reservation, the so-called "Underground Reservation".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thomas L. Sloan</span> Native American lawyer and activist

Thomas Louis Sloan was a Native American lawyer and activist. Sloan worked alongside his partner, Hiram Chase, for much of his career. Sloan has a history of activism dating back to his teenage years. In 1911, he helped found the Society of American Indians. In addition, he established the first Indian-owned law office in Washington D.C. in 1912. Sloan was an activist for the citizenship of all Native Americans.

Diminishment is the legal process by which the United States Congress can reduce the size of an Indian reservation.

Sharp v. Murphy, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a Supreme Court of the United States case of whether Congress disestablished the Muscogee (Creek) Nation reservation. After holding the case from the 2018 term, the case was decided on July 9, 2020, in a per curiam decision following McGirt v. Oklahoma that, for the purposes of the Major Crimes Act, the reservations were never disestablished and remain Native American country.

Patchak v. Zinke, 583 U.S. ___ (2018), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act, which precludes federal courts from hearing lawsuits involving a particular parcel of land. Although six Justices agreed that the Gun Lake Act was constitutional, they could not agree on why. In an opinion issued by Justice Thomas, a plurality of the Court read the statute to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over cases involving the property and held that this did not violate Article Three of the United States Constitution. In contrast, Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, both of whom concurred in the judgment, upheld the Act as a restoration of the government's sovereign immunity. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for himself and Justices Kennedy and Gorsuch, dissented on the ground that the statute intruded on the judicial power, in violation of Article III.

McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that the domain reserved for the Muscogee Nation by Congress in the 19th century has never been disestablished and constitutes Indian country for the purposes of the Major Crimes Act, meaning that the State of Oklahoma has no right to prosecute American Indians for crimes allegedly committed therein. After McGirt, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals applied the McGirt rationale in six similar cases, finding that Congress established reservations within the final incarnation of the Indian Territory for eight other Indigenous nations which have not been disestablished. As a result, almost the entirety of the eastern half of what is now the State of Oklahoma remains Indian country, meaning that criminal prosecutions of Native Americans for offenses therein falls outside the jurisdiction of Oklahoma’s court system. In these cases, jurisdiction properly vests within the Indigenous judicial systems and the federal district courts under the Major Crimes Act.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Nebraska v. Parker,No. 14–1406 , 577 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1072 (2016).
  2. SCOTUSblog coverage
  3. Solem v. Bartlett , 465 U.S. 463 (1984).
  4. 136 S. Ct. at 1079
  5. 136 S. Ct. at 1079 (quoting Solem at 470).
  6. 136 S. Ct. at 1079–80.
  7. 136 S. Ct. at 1080.
  8. 136 S. Ct. at 1081–82.