Hagen v. Utah
510 U.S. 399, 1994 U.S. LEXIS 1869, 127 L. Ed. 2d 252 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a surplus land act explicitly restores unallotted Indian reservation lands to the public domain, it demonstrates a clear congressional intent to diminish the reservation's boundaries, thereby removing those lands from reservation status.
Facts:
- In 1861, President Lincoln established an Indian reservation in the Utah Territory, which Congress confirmed in 1864 as the Uintah Valley Reservation for the 'permanent settlement and exclusive occupation' of Indian tribes.
- Federal Indian policy later shifted toward allotting reservation land to individual tribal members and opening the surplus, unallotted land to non-Indian settlement.
- Initial efforts in 1894 and 1898 to negotiate a land cession with the Ute Indians of the Uintah Reservation failed due to their resistance.
- In 1902, Congress passed an Act providing for allotments to the Ute Indians and stating that upon a deadline, 'all the unallotted lands within said reservation shall be restored to the public domain.'
- After the Supreme Court's 1903 decision in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock permitted Congress to act unilaterally, Congress passed acts in 1903 and 1904 that mandated the allotments without Indian consent.
- In 1903, U.S. Indian Inspector James McLaughlin told the Ute Indians that after the opening, 'there will be no outside boundary line to this reservation.'
- In 1905, Congress passed a final act specifying that the unallotted lands would be disposed of under homestead and town-site laws, and President Theodore Roosevelt subsequently issued a proclamation opening the lands for settlement.
- The petitioner, Hagen, an Indian, committed a criminal offense in the town of Myton, which was established on the opened, unallotted lands within the original 1864 boundaries of the Uintah Reservation.
Procedural Posture:
- Hagen was charged with distribution of a controlled substance in a Utah state trial court.
- Hagen moved to withdraw his guilty plea, asserting the state court lacked jurisdiction because he was an Indian and the crime occurred in Indian country.
- The trial court denied the motion.
- On appeal, the Utah Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court) reversed, holding that the crime occurred in Indian country and the state lacked jurisdiction.
- The State of Utah appealed to the Utah Supreme Court (the state's highest court), which reversed the court of appeals, holding that the Uintah Reservation had been diminished and the crime did not occur in Indian country.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict between the Tenth Circuit's and the Utah Supreme Court's rulings on the reservation's status.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did Congress diminish the Uintah Indian Reservation through a series of acts between 1902 and 1905 that opened unallotted lands to non-Indian settlement and expressly provided for those lands to be 'restored to the public domain'?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
Yes. The Uintah Indian Reservation was diminished by the congressional acts opening the land to settlement. The operative language of the 1902 Act, which provided that unallotted lands 'shall be restored to the public domain,' is powerful evidence of a congressional purpose to terminate reservation status. The Court's precedents have consistently equated such restoration language with diminishment. Although later acts, particularly the 1905 Act that finalized the opening, did not repeat this phrase, they were built upon and must be read together with the 1902 Act. This statutory interpretation is supported by contemporaneous historical evidence, including Inspector McLaughlin's explicit statements to the Utes and President Roosevelt's proclamation, which both reflect an understanding that the reservation's exterior boundary was being extinguished. Finally, the subsequent jurisdictional history and demographics—the area is now predominantly non-Indian and has been governed by the State of Utah for decades—confirm a practical acknowledgment of diminishment and support the conclusion that Congress intended this result.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
No. The Uintah Indian Reservation was not diminished because there is no clear and unequivocal evidence of congressional intent to do so. The majority places too much weight on the ambiguous phrase 'restored to the public domain' from the 1902 Act, which can merely mean the lands were made available for sale, a condition consistent with continued reservation status as held in Solem v. Bartlett. The controlling statute is the 1905 Act, which actually opened the lands and conspicuously omitted the 'public domain' language, speaking only of opening lands to settlement—language this Court has repeatedly found insufficient for diminishment. Given the Ute Tribe's persistent opposition and the lack of their consent, the canons of construction requiring that ambiguities be resolved in favor of the Indians should control. The legislative history shows Congress deliberately removed the public domain language in 1905, and in the face of such ambiguity, the Court is bound to rule that the original reservation boundaries survived.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal significance of the phrase 'restored to the public domain' as a strong, almost conclusive, indicator of congressional intent to diminish an Indian reservation. It clarifies that a series of related surplus land acts should be read together, allowing the clear intent of an earlier act to define the outcome even if the language is not repeated in a final implementing act. The ruling also elevates the importance of demographic and jurisdictional history as practical factors that can corroborate a finding of diminishment, potentially signaling a slight shift from the very strong presumption against diminishment found in prior cases like Solem v. Bartlett.
Unlock the full brief for Hagen v. Utah