Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States
391 U.S. 404, 20 L. Ed. 2d 697, 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1550 (1968)
Rule of Law:
A federal statute terminating federal supervision over a Native American tribe will not be construed to abrogate the tribe's treaty-protected rights, such as hunting and fishing rights, unless Congress has clearly and explicitly expressed its intention to do so.
Facts:
- In 1854, the United States and the Menominee Tribe entered into the Treaty of Wolf River, which granted the tribe a reservation in Wisconsin.
- The treaty language, "to be held as Indian lands are held," was understood to include the tribe's rights to hunt and fish on their reservation lands.
- In 1954, Congress enacted the Menominee Indian Termination Act with the stated purpose of ending federal supervision over the tribe and its property.
- The Termination Act provided that upon its full implementation, the laws of the State of Wisconsin would apply to the tribe and its members in the same manner as they apply to other citizens.
- After the Act became fully effective in 1961, Wisconsin began prosecuting members of the Menominee Tribe for violating state hunting and fishing regulations on their former reservation lands.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Wisconsin prosecuted several Menominee Tribe members in state court for violating hunting and fishing regulations.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the state regulations were valid, concluding the tribe's hunting and fishing rights had been abrogated by the Termination Act.
- The Menominee Tribe then sued the United States in the U.S. Court of Claims, seeking just compensation for the governmental taking of their treaty rights.
- The Court of Claims, in a divided vote, held that the tribe's hunting and fishing rights survived the Termination Act and were not abrogated.
- The United States Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to resolve the direct conflict between the rulings of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Claims.
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 Menominee Indian Termination Act of 1954, which subjected the Menominee Tribe to state laws and ended federal supervision, abrogate the tribe's hunting and fishing rights guaranteed by the Treaty of Wolf River of 1854?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Douglas
No. The Menominee Indian Termination Act of 1954 does not abrogate the tribe's treaty-protected hunting and fishing rights. The Court reasoned that the intention to abrogate or modify a treaty is not to be lightly imputed to Congress; such an intent must be expressed clearly. The Termination Act must be read in pari materia (together as one) with Public Law 280, a contemporaneous statute passed by the same Congress. Public Law 280 granted certain states, including Wisconsin, jurisdiction over Indian country but explicitly provided that it shall not deprive any tribe of any right afforded under federal treaty with respect to hunting or fishing. Reading the two acts together demonstrates that while Congress intended to terminate federal supervision, it did not intend to extinguish the tribe's substantive treaty rights.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Stewart
Yes. The Menominee Indian Termination Act of 1954 did abrogate the tribe's special hunting and fishing rights. The dissent argued that the plain language of the Act—that state laws "shall apply to the tribe and its members in the same manner as they apply to other citizens"—is unambiguous and controlling. This language leaves no exception for hunting and fishing laws. The majority's reliance on Public Law 280 is misplaced because that law applies to state jurisdiction over existing "Indian country," whereas the Termination Act's entire purpose was to eliminate the Menominee Reservation as Indian country. Therefore, the tribe's rights were extinguished by the statute, and they are entitled to receive compensation from the United States for the taking.
Analysis:
This decision established a fundamental canon of construction in federal Indian law: the abrogation of tribal treaty rights requires a clear and specific congressional intent. The Court's use of the in pari materia doctrine to read the Termination Act in conjunction with Public Law 280 created a protective framework for treaty rights, even in the face of federal termination policy. This precedent significantly tempered the assimilationist goals of the termination era by preserving substantive rights that were not explicitly targeted for extinguishment. It ensures that courts will presume treaty rights survive unless Congress has spoken directly and unambiguously to the contrary.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States (1968)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"