Idaho v. United States
533 U.S. 262, 2001 U.S. LEXIS 4665, 150 L. Ed. 2d 326 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While new states typically acquire title to lands under navigable waters within their borders upon admission to the Union under the equal footing doctrine, Congress can defeat this presumption if it clearly and plainly intended, prior to statehood, to reserve such submerged lands for a federal purpose, such as an Indian reservation, especially when the lands are integral to the reservation's purpose and tribal consent for any modification was required.
Facts:
- The Coeur d’Alene Tribe historically inhabited over 3.5 million acres in what is now northern Idaho and northeastern Washington, including the area of Lake Coeur d’Alene and the St. Joe River, traditionally using these waterways for food, transportation, recreation, and cultural activities.
- In 1846, the United States acquired title to the region from Great Britain, subject to the aboriginal right of possession held by resident tribes.
- In 1867, President Johnson issued an Executive Order setting aside a reservation for the Tribe, but its boundaries were unsatisfactory to the Tribe, due in part to their failure to make adequate provision for fishing and other uses of important waterways.
- In 1873, after further negotiations, the Tribe agreed to relinquish claims to its aboriginal lands outside the bounds of a more substantial reservation that U.S. negotiators agreed to “set apart and secure” for the Tribe's exclusive use, covering part of the St. Joe River and most of Lake Coeur d’Alene.
- Later in 1873, President Grant issued an Executive Order directing that the reservation specified in the agreement be “withdrawn from sale and set apart as a reservation,” with its northern boundary set directly across Lake Coeur d’Alene.
- An 1883 Government survey fixed the reservation’s total area at 598,499.85 acres, which the District Court found necessarily “included submerged lands within the reservation boundaries.”
- In 1887, the Tribe agreed to cede all other land claims except for their existing Coeur d’Alene Reservation, with the Government promising the reservation “shall be held forever as Indian land and as homes for the Coeur d’Alene Indians.”
- In 1889, Congress authorized new negotiations for the Tribe to sell such portions of its reservation “not agricultural and valuable chiefly for minerals and timber as such tribe shall consent to sell,” leading to a new agreement where the Tribe would cede the northern portion of the reservation, including approximately two-thirds of Lake Coeur d’Alene, in exchange for $500,000.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States, acting on its own behalf and as trustee for the Coeur d’Alene Tribe, initiated a quiet title action against the State of Idaho in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho (trial court).
- The Coeur d’Alene Tribe intervened in the action to assert its interest in the submerged lands, and Idaho counterclaimed, seeking to quiet title in its own favor.
- Following a 9-day trial, the District Court quieted title in favor of the United States, as trustee, and the Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, as the beneficially interested party, to the bed and banks of the Coeur d’Alene Lake and the St. Joe River lying within the current reservation boundaries.
- The State of Idaho appealed the District Court's decision.
- The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the District Court's judgment, with the United States as appellee and Idaho as appellant.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's decision, with Idaho as petitioner and the United States and the Coeur d’Alene Tribe as respondents.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the National Government hold title, in trust for the Coeur d’Alene Tribe, to lands underlying portions of Lake Coeur d’Alene and the St. Joe River within the Tribe's reservation, or did these lands pass to the State of Idaho upon its admission to the Union?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Souter
Yes, the National Government holds title, in trust for the Coeur d’Alene Tribe, to the lands underlying portions of Lake Coeur d’Alene and the St. Joe River. The Court acknowledged that title to submerged lands generally passes to a new state upon its admission to the Union under the equal footing doctrine, but Congress has the power to reserve such lands before statehood. The Court applied a two-step inquiry: first, whether Congress intended to include submerged lands within the federal reservation, and second, whether Congress intended to defeat the future State’s title to these lands. Idaho conceded that the 1873 Executive Order reservation, as understood by 1888, included submerged lands, and that Congress was on notice of this fact through the Secretary of Interior's 1888 report. The Tribe's traditional and continuous dependence on the lake and rivers for sustenance made their inclusion vital to the reservation's purpose, distinguishing this case from others where such intent was not found. Congress consistently demonstrated an intent to deal consensually with the Tribe regarding its land claims and reservation boundaries. This intent was evidenced by the 1886 Act authorizing negotiations for cession of aboriginal lands, the 1888 Act requiring tribal consent and compensation for a railroad right-of-way crossing navigable waters within the reservation, and the 1889 Act authorizing negotiations for the Tribe to sell portions of its own reservation. The goal of avoiding hostility and extinguishing aboriginal title could not have been fully attained without the Tribe’s agreement to any land claim abrogation or reservation reduction. Congress's final 1891 ratification of the 1887 and 1889 agreements, which included language that the reservation "shall be held forever as Indian land," without the Tribe ceding the disputed submerged lands, further reinforced this pre-statehood intent. Post-statehood actions, such as the 1891 confirmation of the Tribe's sale of river channels to Frederick Post and the 1894 Harrison townsite cession (for which the Tribe, and no one else, was compensated for submerged lands), also confirmed Congress's understanding that these lands had not passed to Idaho. The evidence, therefore, made it "very plain" that Congress recognized the full extent of the Executive Order reservation and intended to prevent title to the submerged lands from passing to Idaho.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No, the National Government does not hold title to the submerged lands because Congress's intent to defeat Idaho's title to these lands was not "definitely declared or otherwise made very plain" before Idaho's admission to the Union. Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that ownership of lands under navigable waters is an incident of sovereignty, and new states enter the Union on an “equal footing,” meaning title to submerged lands within their borders typically vests upon statehood. There is a strong presumption against defeating a State’s title, requiring clear congressional intent. The dissent contended that the majority made three critical errors: 1) It improperly looked to events after Idaho's admission (July 3, 1890) to discern congressional intent. The "consequences of admission are instantaneous," and subsequent actions cannot diminish what was already bestowed upon the State. Prior cases, such as United States v. Alaska, consistently focused on the moment of statehood. 2) It relied on inchoate pre-statehood proceedings (like Senate bills and House committee reports) that had not yet gained the force of law as ratified Acts of Congress at the time of Idaho's statehood. The 1887 and 1889 agreements were not ratified by both Houses of Congress until after Idaho's admission. 3) It made an unwarranted assumption that preserving tribal access to navigable waters necessarily implied reserving title to the submerged lands. Congress could have intended to grant a right to fish and travel the waters without withholding ownership of the land beneath. The railroad right-of-way, for instance, primarily impacted surface lands, and the compensation was likely for that. The boilerplate language in the Idaho Constitution regarding Indian lands also did not clarify whether submerged lands were specifically "owned or held" by the Tribe at statehood. Therefore, the evidence of congressional intent failed to meet the high standard required to defeat a state's sovereign interest in submerged lands.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the stringent requirements for the federal government to reserve submerged lands within an Indian reservation, thereby overcoming a future state's presumptive title under the equal footing doctrine. It emphasizes that while the presumption strongly favors the state, Congress's clear, pre-statehood intent, demonstrably linked to tribal negotiations and the reservation's core purpose, can prevail. The decision underscores the importance of a detailed examination of legislative history and executive actions taken prior to statehood, particularly when evaluating claims where tribal reliance on specific water bodies is central to the reservation's viability. This ruling reinforces the principle that extinguishing aboriginal title or modifying reservation boundaries requires explicit, consensual, and compensated actions by Congress, rather than being implied or occurring by operation of law upon statehood, thereby affirming the sanctity of tribal agreements and congressional intent in defining Indian land holdings.
