Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip
430 U.S. 584, 97 S. Ct. 1361, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 71 (1977)
Rule of Law:
A congressional determination to terminate or diminish an Indian reservation may be found even without express statutory language of termination, if the face of the Act, its legislative history, and the surrounding circumstances demonstrate a clear congressional intent to change the reservation's boundaries.
Facts:
- In 1889, Congress established the Rosebud Indian Reservation, encompassing land that would later become five counties in South Dakota.
- An 1868 treaty required the consent of three-fourths of the Tribe's adult males for any land cession.
- In 1901, U.S. Inspector James McLaughlin negotiated an agreement with the Rosebud Sioux for the cession of unallotted lands in Gregory County for a fixed sum, and the agreement obtained the required three-fourths tribal consent.
- Congress did not ratify the 1901 agreement because it required the government to pay for the lands outright rather than having settlers pay over time.
- In 1903, McLaughlin failed to obtain the required three-fourths consent for a new agreement that changed the payment method to a trust arrangement, though a majority of tribal members did consent.
- In 1904, Congress unilaterally passed an Act opening the Gregory County lands for settlement under the trust payment scheme, incorporating the 'cede, surrender, grant, and convey' language from the 1901 agreement.
- Congress passed a similar Act in 1907 authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to 'sell or dispose of' unallotted lands in Tripp and Lyman Counties.
- Congress passed a final Act in 1910, again using 'sell or dispose of' language, to open lands in Mellette County, which included a provision allowing Indians to select new allotments on the 'diminished reservation.'
Procedural Posture:
- The Rosebud Sioux Tribe filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, seeking a declaratory judgment that its reservation boundaries had not been diminished.
- The District Court (trial court) denied relief, ruling that Congress had intended to diminish the reservation.
- The Rosebud Sioux Tribe, as appellant, appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Tribe's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do three Acts of Congress passed in 1904, 1907, and 1910, which opened unallotted lands on the Rosebud Sioux Reservation to non-Indian settlement, operate to diminish the reservation's original 1889 boundaries?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Rehnquist
Yes, the Acts of 1904, 1907, and 1910 diminished the reservation's boundaries because the cumulative evidence demonstrates a clear congressional intent to alter the reservation's status. While a congressional determination to terminate must be clear, it can be inferred from the face of the Act, surrounding circumstances, and legislative history, not just from express termination language. The 1901 agreement, which was approved by the Tribe, unquestionably contemplated disestablishment, and the 1904 Act carried this purpose forward. Congress's power to act unilaterally was affirmed by this Court in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock. The 1904 Act's use of 'cession' language, its provision for state school lands (which presupposed the extinguishment of the reservation), and the unambiguous Presidential Proclamation opening the lands all point to an intent to diminish. The subsequent 1907 and 1910 Acts, though using different operative language, were substantively identical and their legislative histories confirm they were part of a continuous policy of reducing the reservation's size. Finally, the long-standing and undisputed assumption of state jurisdiction over these areas for over 70 years has created justifiable expectations that weigh heavily in favor of finding diminishment.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Marshall
No, the Acts did not diminish the reservation's boundaries because Congress failed to use the clear and express language of termination required by this Court's precedents. The general rule that legal ambiguities in Indian statutes must be resolved in the Tribe's favor has been eroded by the majority's holding. Unlike other statutes where Congress explicitly 'discontinued' or 'abolished' reservations, the Rosebud Acts contain no such terms. The 'cession' language in the 1904 Act is stripped of its meaning because it was part of a unilateral act to which the Tribe did not consent, distinguishing this case from DeCoteau. The 1907 and 1910 Acts merely 'opened' lands for sale, which under Mattz and Seymour does not disestablish a reservation. The legislative history is sparse and ambiguous, showing congressional indifference to the boundary issue, not a clear intent to diminish. This decision creates an impractical checkerboard of jurisdiction and wrongly jeopardizes the property rights and federal support for nearly 2,000 tribal members living in the affected areas.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that congressional intent to diminish a reservation does not require express words of termination, such as 'abolished' or 'discontinued.' The Court endorsed a totality-of-the-circumstances approach, giving significant weight to legislative history, the history of negotiations (even failed ones), contemporaneous executive interpretations, and subsequent jurisdictional patterns. This moves the inquiry away from a bright-line rule focused solely on statutory text, as suggested in Mattz, toward a more holistic but less predictable analysis. The ruling creates a precedent that could be used to find diminishment in numerous other reservations opened under similar 'surplus land' acts from the same era, increasing legal uncertainty for many tribes.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip (1977)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"