State v. Elliott

Last updated
State v. Elliott
Court Vermont Supreme Court
Full case nameState of Vermont v. Raleigh Elliott, et al.
DecidedJune 12, 1992
Citation(s)616 A.2d 210, 159 Vt. 102 (Vt. 1992)
Case history
Subsequent action(s)Reargument denied (Aug. 25, 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 911 (1993)
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingAllen, C.J., Gibson and Morse, JJ., and Albert W. Barney, C.J. (ret.) and Peck, J. (ret.), specially assigned
Case opinions
Morse

State v. Elliott, 616 A.2d 210 (Vt. 1992), is a decision of the Vermont Supreme Court holding that all aboriginal title in Vermont was extinguished "by the increasing weight of history." [1] The Vermont Supreme Court has clarified that its holding in Elliott applies to the entire state. [2]

Contents

Background

In 1987, the land claim became an issue in the Abenaki chief election between Homer St. Francis and Lester Lampman. Lampman advocated that the tribe take a more aggressive stance in pushing its claim to "all of Vermont as well as parts of New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Maine." [3] St. Francis won the election.

On October 18, 1987, St. Francis organized a "fish-in" with 35 other tribal members on the Missisquoi River, conducted without licenses from the state. [4]

Just prior to the district court's decision, Chief St. Francis withdrew the tribe's petition for federal recognition, saying: "We don't need a Government we don't recognize to tell us we exist." [5]

Prior history

The case arose in the aftermath two Vermont District Court decisions.

State v. Saint Francis (1989)

In State v. Saint Francis, on August 14, 1989, Judge Joseph J. Wolchik of the Vermont District Court in Franklin County, in a 96-page decision, [6] held that the Abenaki were a tribe, retained aboriginal rights to hunt and fish, and therefore did not need to acquire fishing licenses from the state. [5] Judge Wolchik held that the Abenaki's aboriginal area consisted of 500,000 acres in northwestern Vermont: Grand Isle County, most of Franklin County, and some of Chittenden and Orleans counties. [4] Wolchik dismissed the charges against all but six of the defendants; he held that the remaining six were not tribal members. [4]

In the aftermath of the decision, Chief St. Francis vowed to file a land claim "as soon as possible." [5] By then, St. Francis estimated the tribe's claim area as "all of Vermont, all of New Hampshire, and parts of northern Massachusetts, western Maine, upstate New York and southern Quebec." [4] [7]

By September 12, 1990, several title insurance companies in Vermont attempted to amend their standard policy contracts (an action that requires approval from the state banking department) to exclude a potential Abenaki claim from coverage. [8]

State v. Bellevue (1990)

In State v. Bellevue, on August 13, 1990, in another fishing rights case, Judge Edward Cashman of the Vermont District Court in Franklin County held that the Abenaki were not exempt from state criminal jurisdiction. [9] Judge Cashman, unlike Judge Wolchik, held neither tribal status nor aboriginal fishing rights could exist in the absence of a federal treaty. [9]

Opinion

The Vermont Supreme Court reversed and remanded Judge Wolchik's decision.

The opinion's main legal innovation was holding that "[a]n historical event, although insufficient by itself to establish an extinguishment, may contribute to a finding of extinguishment when analyzed together with other events" and that "a century-long course of conduct may demonstrate extinguishment, even though the exact date on which Indian title is extinguished is difficult to determine." [10]

The court concluded that "a series of historical events, beginning with the Wentworth Grants of 1763, and ending with Vermont's admission to the Union in 1791, extinguished the aboriginal rights claimed here." [11]

Reception

Legal commentary on the Elliott decision has been generally negative. According to Joseph William Singer, a professor at Harvard Law School:

[I]t defies both precedent and the longstanding policy of protecting Indian title to conclude that Congress, by the simple admission of Vermont to the Union, casually obliterated all Abenaki title in the State of Vermont, whether currently settled by non-Indians or inhabited by Abenakis. [12]

Gene Bergman wrote in the American Indian Law Review:

Elliot misinterprets Abenaki/Vermont history during the period from 1763 to 1791. An honest account of history would not have found extinguishment under the traditional rules. Hence, to avoid this conclusion, the Vermont Court created a radical new test that undermines the United States Supreme Court's rules and purposes protecting aboriginal title. . . .
Essentially, the court changed the test from an examination of intent/purpose to a review of cumulative effects. Under this new test, a sovereign need not have known that the consequences of an act would eliminate aboriginal title. Therefore, if the sovereign unleashed forces which eventually frustrated Indian occupancy, Elliot would find extinguishment in that act. Elliot implicitly holds that the cumulative effects need not be manifested at the time of or near in time to the sovereign action. The functional result of Elliot is that courts will weigh the cumulative effects of a sovereign's action over a long time—say, 200 years. This removes the barrier prohibiting the light imputing of extinguishment. Elliot undermines the entire framework of aboriginal title law. [13]

According to John Lowndes:

This controversial decision marks a clear departure from the longstanding aboriginal title doctrine expounded in the early nineteenth century by Chief Justice John Marshall and the United States Supreme Court. The Vermont court's decision not only breaks with the rule that a tribe must consent to extinguishment of its aboriginal title, but also rejects the requirement that the dominant sovereign must express its intent to extinguish title with a "plain and unambiguous action." The Vermont Supreme Court's holding that the "increasing weight of history" alone can terminate Indian title disposes of the rule of law, and replaces it with a selective reading of the conqueror's history. [14]

Aftermath

State recognition

Vermont extended state-recognition to the Abenaki in 2006. [15] The original recognition act provided:

This chapter shall not be construed to recognize, create, extend, or form the basis of any right or claim to land or real estate in Vermont for the Abenaki people or any Abenaki individual and shall be construed to confer only those rights specifically described in this chapter. [16]

The language was amended and re-codified in 2010:

Recognition of a Native American Indian tribe shall not be construed to create, extend, or form the basis of any right or claim to land or real estate in Vermont or right to conduct any gambling activities prohibited by law, but confers only those rights specifically described in this chapter. [17]

The amendment bill also added the following language:

State-recognized Native American Indian tribes and their members will continue to be subject to all laws of the state, and recognition shall not be construed to create any basis or authority for tribes to establish or promote any form of prohibited gambling activity or to claim any interest in land or real estate in Vermont. [18]

Federal recognition

The St. Francis/Sokoki Band of Abenakis of Vermont were denied federal recognition on July 2, 2007. [19] The Department of Interior determined that the Abenaki failed to satisfy four of the seven criteria for federal recognition:

  1. that external observers identify the group as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900,
  2. that a predominant portion of the group comprises a distinct community and has existed as a community from historical times until the present,
  3. that the group has maintained political influence or authority over its members as an autonomous entity from historical times until the present, and
  4. that the group's membership consist of individuals who descend from a historical Indian tribe or from historical Indian tribes that combined and functioned as a single autonomous political entity. [19]

Notes

  1. ↑ State v. Elliott, 616 A.2d 210, 218 (Vt. 1992) ("The legal standard does not require that extinguishment spring full blown from a single telling event. Extinguishment may be established by the increasing weight of history.").
  2. ↑ State v. Cameron, 658 A.2d 939, 940 (Vt. 1995) ("Our holding in that case was made as a matter of law based on historical fact. Consequently, under the doctrine of stare decisis, Elliott is precedent binding in general, not just binding on parties to the original case. . . . Elliott affects all lands within Vermont's boundaries.").
  3. ↑ UPI, Indians fight for control of tribe, September 4, 1987.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Boston Globe, Tribe to claim one-third of New England, August 10, 1990, at M1.
  5. 1 2 3 New York Times, Indians in Vermont Tribe Need No Licenses to Fish, Judge Rules, August 15, 1989, at A19.
  6. ↑ State v. Saint Francis, No. 1171-10-86Fcr (Vt. Dist. Ct. Aug. 11, 1989).
  7. ↑ Union Leader (Manchester, NH), Abenakis Say They Own NH, Vt., Plan To File Suit To Regain Land, August 11, 1990, at 1.
  8. ↑ Union Leader (Manchester, NH), Native Claims Cloud Vt. Title Insurance, September 12, 1990.
  9. 1 2 State v. Bellevue, No. 1862-11-89Fcr (Vt. Dist. Ct. Aug. 13, 1990).
  10. ↑ 616 A.2d at 213-14.
  11. ↑ 616 A.2d at 214.
  12. ↑ Singer, 28 Ga. L. Rev. at 519.
  13. ↑ Bergman, 18 Am. Indian. L. Rev. at 458-59.
  14. ↑ Lowndes, 42 Buff. L. Rev. at 77.
  15. ↑ 2006 Vt. Legis. Serv. 125 (West) (codified as amended at Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 1, §§ 851-853).
  16. ↑ 2006 Vt. Legis. Serv. 125 (West) (codified at Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 1, § 853(c) (amended 2010)).
  17. ↑ 2010 Vt. Legis. Serv. 107 (West) (codified at Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 1, § 853(h)).
  18. ↑ 2010 Vt. Legis. Serv. 107 (West) (codified at Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 1, § 851(8)).
  19. 1 2 Final Determination against Federal Acknowledgment of the St. Francis / Sokoki Band of Abenakis of Vermont, 72 Fed. Reg. 36,022 (July 2, 2007); see also Proposed Finding Against Federal Acknowledgment of the St. Francis/Sokoki Band of Abenakis of Vermont, 70 Fed. Reg. 69,776 (proposed Nov. 17, 2005).

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abenaki</span> Indigenous people of the Northeastern Woodlands of Canada and the US

The Abenaki are an Indigenous peoples of the Northeastern Woodlands of Canada and the United States. They are an Algonquian-speaking people and part of the Wabanaki Confederacy. The Eastern Abenaki language was predominantly spoken in Maine, while the Western Abenaki language was spoken in Quebec, Vermont, and New Hampshire.

The Nonintercourse Act is the collective name given to six statutes passed by the Congress in 1790, 1793, 1796, 1799, 1802, and 1834 to set Amerindian boundaries of reservations. The various Acts were also intended to regulate commerce between settlers and the natives. The most notable provisions of the Act regulate the inalienability of aboriginal title in the United States, a continuing source of litigation for almost 200 years. The prohibition on purchases of Indian lands without the approval of the federal government has its origins in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783.

State-recognized tribes in the United States are organizations that identify as Native American tribes or heritage groups that do not meet the criteria for federally recognized Indian tribes but have been recognized by a process established under assorted state government laws for varying purposes or by governor's executive orders. State recognition does not dictate whether or not they are recognized as Native American tribes by continually existing tribal nations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vincent Illuzzi</span> American politician

Vincent Illuzzi, Jr. is an American lawyer and politician from Derby, Vermont who formerly served as a Republican member of the Vermont State Senate representing the Essex-Orleans senate district.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Odanak</span> First Nations reserve in Quebec, Canada

Odanak is an Abenaki First Nations reserve in the Central Quebec region, Quebec, Canada. The mostly First Nations population as of the Canada 2021 Census was 481. The territory is located near the mouth of the Saint-François River at its confluence with the St. Lawrence River. It is partly within the limits of Pierreville and across the river from Saint-François-du-Lac. Odanak is an Abenaki word meaning "in the village".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal title</span> Concept in common law of indigenous land rights persisting after colonization

Aboriginal title is a common law doctrine that the land rights of indigenous peoples to customary tenure persist after the assumption of sovereignty under settler colonialism. The requirements of proof for the recognition of aboriginal title, the content of aboriginal title, the methods of extinguishing aboriginal title, and the availability of compensation in the case of extinguishment vary significantly by jurisdiction. Nearly all jurisdictions are in agreement that aboriginal title is inalienable, and that it may be held either individually or collectively.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Missiquoi</span> Historic First Nations people in Quebec and Vermont

The Missiquoi were a historic band of Abenaki Indigenous peoples from present-day southern Quebec and formerly northern Vermont. This Algonquian-speaking group lived along the eastern shore of Lake Champlain at the time of the European incursion. Today, they are part of the Conseil des Abénakis d'Odanak, a First Nation in Quebec.

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.

<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.

Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy, 162 U.S. 283 (1896), was the first litigation of aboriginal title in the United States by a tribal plaintiff in the Supreme Court of the United States since Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831). It was the first such litigation by an indigenous plaintiff since Fellows v. Blacksmith (1857) and its companion case of New York ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble (1858). The New York courts held that the 1788 Phelps and Gorham Purchase did not violate the Nonintercourse Act, one of the provisions of which prohibits purchases of Indian lands without the approval of the federal government, and that the Seneca Nation of New York was barred by the state statute of limitations from challenging the transfer of title. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the merits of lower court ruling because of the adequate and independent state grounds doctrine.

<i>Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton</i> United States court decision recognizing Native American rights

Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, 528 F.2d 370, was a landmark decision regarding aboriginal title in the United States. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the Nonintercourse Act applied to the Passamaquoddy and Penobscot, non-federally-recognized Indian tribes, and established a trust relationship between those tribes and the federal government that the State of Maine could not terminate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian Land Claims Settlements</span> Settlements of Native American land claims by Acts of the US Congress

Indian Land Claims Settlements are settlements of Native American land claims by the United States Congress, codified in 25 U.S.C. ch. 19.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal title in the Marshall Court</span> Court era recognizing Native American tribal rights

The Marshall Court (1801–1835) issued some of the earliest and most influential opinions by the Supreme Court of the United States on the status of aboriginal title in the United States, several of them written by Chief Justice John Marshall himself. However, without exception, the remarks of the Court on aboriginal title during this period are dicta. Only one indigenous litigant ever appeared before the Marshall Court, and there, Marshall dismissed the case for lack of original jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Narragansett land claim</span> Litigation of aboriginal title in Rhode Island, US

The Narragansett land claim was one of the first litigations of aboriginal title in the United States in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida (1974), or Oneida I, decision. The Narragansett claimed a few thousand acres of land in and around Charlestown, Rhode Island, challenging a variety of early 19th century land transfers as violations of the Nonintercourse Act, suing both the state and private land owners.

Fellows v. Blacksmith, 60 U.S. 366 (1857), is a United States Supreme Court decision involving Native American law. John Blacksmith, a Tonawanda Seneca, sued agents of the Ogden Land Company for common law claims of trespass, assault, and battery after he was forcibly evicted from his sawmill by the Company's agents. The Court affirmed a judgement in Blacksmith's favor, notwithstanding the fact that the Seneca had executed an Indian removal treaty and the Company held the exclusive right to purchase to the land by virtue of an interstate compact ratified by Congress.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal title in California</span> Land rights of indigenous peoples

Aboriginal title in California refers to the aboriginal title land rights of the indigenous peoples of California. The state is unique in that no Native American tribe in California is the counterparty to a ratified federal treaty. Therefore, all the Indian reservations in the state were created by federal statute or executive order.

Aboriginal land title in New Mexico is unique among aboriginal title in the United States. Congressional legislation was passed to define such title after the United States acquired this territory following war with Mexico (1846-1848). But the Supreme Court of the New Mexico Territory and the United States Supreme Court held that the Nonintercourse Act did not restrict the alienability of Pueblo lands.

Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Coeur d'Alene Tribe could not maintain an action against the state of Idaho to press its claim to Lake Coeur d'Alene due to the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit, notwithstanding the exception recognized in Ex parte Young. The case was an important precedent for aboriginal title in the United States and sovereign immunity in the United States.

The Nulhegan Band of the Coosuk Abenaki Nation is a state-recognized tribe and nonprofit organization, called AHA "Abenaki Helping Abenaki", whose headquarters and land are based in Vermont. They are often referred to as the Nulhegan Abenaki Tribe or simply, Nulhegan.

The Missisquoi Abenaki Tribe is one of four state-recognized tribes in Vermont, who claim descent from Abenaki people. The Missisquoi Abenaki Tribe specifically claims descent from the Missiquoi people.

References

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.