South Dakota v. Bourland

Last updated

South Dakota v. Bourland
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued March 2, 1993
Decided June 14, 1993
Full case nameSouth Dakota v. Gregg Bourland, etc., et al.
Citations508 U.S. 679 ( more )
113 S. Ct. 2309; 124 L. Ed. 2d 606; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 4034
Case history
PriorSouth Dakota v. Bourland, 949F.2d984 (8th Cir.1991).
Holding
Reversed, 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.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
Byron White  · Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Case opinions
MajorityThomas, joined by Rehnquist, White, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy
DissentBlackmun, joined by Souter
Laws applied
Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 (15 Stat 635); Flood Control Act of 1944 (58 Stat 887); Cheyenne River Act of September 3, 1954 (68 Stat 1191)

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. [1]

Contents

Background

History

In 1868, the Fort Laramie Treaty, 15  Stat.   635 [2] was signed between the United States and the Sioux Indian Tribe. This reservation covered almost the entire present day state of South Dakota, but was broken up into six separate reservations in 1889, one of which was the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation. [1] [3] [4]

In 1934, in accordance with the Indian Reorganization Act, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe developed a tribal constitution and enacted tribal laws regulating hunting and fishing on the reservation. In 1953, Congress passed Public Law 280 which granted South Dakota certain jurisdiction over the reservation, but reserved tribal hunting and fishing laws and regulations to tribal jurisdiction. [1] [3]

In 1944, Congress passed the Flood Control Act which allowed the government to purchase land along the Missouri River to build dams. In 1950, Congress passed the Cheyenne River Act which transferred approximately 105,000 acres (420 km2; 164 sq mi) acres from the tribe for approximately $10,000,000.00. The act specifically reserved hunting and fishing rights on the land to the tribe. The tribe and South Dakota thereafter negotiated hunting and fishing agreements where the tribe would honor state hunting licenses on the reservation, until 1988 when they could not reach an agreement. The tribe then stated it would not honor state hunting licenses. [1] [3]

Lower Courts

South Dakota then filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, seeking an injunction to prevent the tribe from enforcing its regulations on non-Indian fee land and land taken under the Cheyenne River Act, but was still within the reservation boundaries. The District Court found for South Dakota and issued the injunction. The tribe then appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded in part. [1] [3]

The Eighth Circuit held that the tribe had the authority to regulate hunting and fishing since Congress did not explicitly revoke that authority, but that on non-Indian fee land that had been acquired by the government, the tribe's authority had been divested unless certain exceptions were met, to be determined by further action in the District Court. South Dakota appealed and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. [1] [3]

Opinion of the Court

Reversed. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court. Thomas first went through the Cheyenne River Act and covered what each relevant section stated. Thomas noted that there was a difference between the 104,420 acres (422.6 km2; 163.16 sq mi) of trust land transferred by the tribe under the Cheyenne River Act and the 18,000 acres (73 km2; 28 sq mi) of non-Indian owned fee lands transferred under the Flood Control Act. Citing Menominee Tribe v. United States , 391 U.S. 404 (1968) and Montana v. United States , 450 U.S. 544 (1981), Thomas noted that Congress has the power to abrogate treaty provisions but that they must "clearly express its intent to do so." Although Thomas indicated that such an abrogation be clearly expressed, he found that the statutes in question "implies the loss of regulatory jurisdiction" by the tribe. Although Thomas found that the statute implied the loss rather than clearly stated it, he reversed the opinion of the Eighth Circuit Court. [1]

Dissent

Justice Harry Blackmun issued a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Souter. Blackmun went into detail pointing out the difference between an explicit abrogation and an implied abrogation. Blackmun would have upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals. [1]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lakota people</span> Indigenous people of the Great Plains

The Lakota are a Native American people. Also known as the Teton Sioux, they are one of the three prominent subcultures of the Sioux people, with the Eastern Dakota (Santee) and Western Dakota (Wičhíyena). Their current lands are in North and South Dakota. They speak Lakȟótiyapi—the Lakota language, the westernmost of three closely related languages that belong to the Siouan language family.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sioux</span> Native American and First Nations ethnic groups

The Sioux or Oceti Sakowin are groups of Native American tribes and First Nations people from the Great Plains of North America. The Sioux have two major linguistic divisions: the Dakota and Lakota peoples. Collectively, they are the Očhéthi Šakówiŋ, or "Seven Council Fires". The term "Sioux", an exonym from a French transcription of the Ojibwe term Nadowessi, can refer to any ethnic group within the Great Sioux Nation or to any of the nation's many language dialects.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian Territory</span> Historic sovereign territory set aside for Native American nations, 1834–1907

Indian Territory and the Indian Territories are terms that generally described an evolving land area set aside by the United States government for the relocation of Native Americans who held original Indian title to their land as an independent nation-state. The concept of an Indian territory was an outcome of the U.S. federal government's 18th- and 19th-century policy of Indian removal. After the American Civil War (1861–1865), the policy of the U.S. government was one of assimilation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)</span> US-Sioux treaty ending Red Clouds War

The Treaty of Fort Laramie is an agreement between the United States and the Oglala, Miniconjou, and Brulé bands of Lakota people, Yanktonai Dakota, and Arapaho Nation, following the failure of the first Fort Laramie treaty, signed in 1851.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lake Oahe</span> Reservoir in North Dakota, United States

Lake Oahe is a large reservoir behind Oahe Dam on the Missouri River; it begins in central South Dakota and continues north into North Dakota in the United States. The lake has an area of 370,000 acres (1,500 km2) and a maximum depth of 205 ft (62 m). By volume, it is the fourth-largest reservoir in the US. Lake Oahe has a length of approximately 231 mi (372 km) and has a shoreline of 2,250 mi (3,620 km). 51 recreation areas are located along Lake Oahe, and 1.5 million people visit the reservoir every year. The lake is named for the 1874 Oahe Indian Mission.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Treaty of Fort Laramie (1851)</span> Treaty on territorial claims of Native Americans

The Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851 was signed on September 17, 1851 between United States treaty commissioners and representatives of the Cheyenne, Sioux, Arapaho, Crow, Assiniboine, Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nations. Also known as Horse Creek Treaty, the treaty set forth traditional territorial claims of the tribes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Great Sioux Reservation</span> Former Indian reservation in the United States

The Great Sioux Reservation is an Indian reservation created by the United States through treaty with the Sioux, principally the Lakota, who dominated the territory before its establishment. In the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, the reservation included lands west of the Missouri River in South Dakota and Nebraska, including all of present-day western South Dakota. The treaty also provided rights to roam and hunt in contiguous areas of North Dakota, Montana Wyoming, and northwest Colorado.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cheyenne River Indian Reservation</span> Indian reservation in South Dakota, United States

The Cheyenne River Indian Reservation was created by the United States in 1889 by breaking up the Great Sioux Reservation, following the attrition of the Lakota in a series of wars in the 1870s. The reservation covers almost all of Dewey and Ziebach counties in South Dakota. In addition, many small parcels of off-reservation trust land are located in Stanley, Haakon, and Meade counties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate</span> Native American tribal organization in South Dakota and North Dakota

The Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, formerly Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe/Dakota Nation, is a federally recognized tribe comprising two bands and two subdivisions of the Isanti or Santee Dakota people. They are on the Lake Traverse Reservation in northeast South Dakota.

Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903), was a landmark 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.

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.

Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), was a Supreme Court case that addressed two issues: (1) Whether the title of the Big Horn Riverbed rested with the United States, in trust for the Crow Tribe or passed to the State of Montana upon becoming a state and (2) Whether Crow Tribe retained the power to regulate hunting and fishing on tribal lands owned in fee-simple by a non-tribal member. First, the Court held that Montana held title to the Big Horn Riverbed because the Equal Footing Doctrine required the United States to pass title to the newly incorporated State. Second, the Court held that Crow Tribe lacked the power to regulate nonmember hunting and fishing on fee-simple land owned by nonmembers, but within the bounds of its reservation. More broadly, the Court held that Tribes could not exercise regulatory authority over nonmembers on fee-simple land within the reservation unless (1) the nonmember entered a "consensual relationship" with the Tribe or its members or (2) the nonmember's "conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe."

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.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Seizure of the Black Hills</span> Land dispute between Native Americans and the US government

The United States government illegally seized the Black Hills – a mountain range in the US states of South Dakota and Wyoming – from the Sioux Nation in 1876. The land was pledged to the Sioux Nation in the Treaty of Fort Laramie, but a few years later the United States illegally seized the land and nullified the treaty with the Indian Appropriations Bill of 1876, without the tribe's consent. That bill "denied the Sioux all further appropriation and treaty-guaranteed annuities" until they gave up the Black Hills. A Supreme Court case was ruled in favor of the Sioux in 1980. As of 2011, the court's award was worth over $1 billion, but the Sioux have outstanding issues with the ruling and have not collected the funds.

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.

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.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to United States federal Indian law and policy:

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.

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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 South Dakota v. Gregg Bourland, et al., 508 U.S. 679 (1993)
  2. Kappler, Charles J., ed. (1904). "Treaty with the Sioux-Brule, Ogala, Miniconjou, Yanktonai, Hunkpapa, Blackfeet, Cuthead, Two Kettle, Sans Arcs, and Santee-and Arapaho, 1868". Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, Vol. II (Treaties). Washington, DC: GPO. pp. 998–1007. Retrieved May 19, 2010., courtesy of Oklahoma State University Library
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 State of South Dakota v. Gregg Bourland, etc., et al.,949F.2d984(8th Cir.1991).
  4. Kappler, Charles J., ed. (1904). "March 2, 1889: 25 Stat. 888". Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, Vol. I (Laws). Washington, DC: GPO. pp. 328–339. Retrieved May 19, 2010., courtesy of Oklahoma State University Library