Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States
1942 U.S. LEXIS 1138, 316 U.S. 317, 62 S. Ct. 1095 (1942)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An Indian reservation created by executive order, rather than by treaty or statute, does not confer a compensable property interest to the tribe. Such an interest is a temporary and permissive right of use, which the government can terminate at will without incurring an obligation to pay compensation.
Facts:
- In 1868, the United States and the Sioux Tribe signed the Fort Laramie Treaty, establishing the Great Sioux Reservation.
- Following the treaty, white settlers established a significant liquor trade with the Sioux from lands adjacent to the reservation's eastern border.
- To suppress this liquor traffic, the President issued four executive orders between 1875 and 1876, withdrawing tracts of land from public sale and setting them apart for the use of the Sioux Tribe as additions to their reservation.
- Government officials informed white settlers on these lands that the withdrawal was not intended to be permanent and did not affect existing rights.
- In 1877, Congress passed a law making it a federal crime to sell liquor to Indians anywhere, reducing the original justification for the executive order lands.
- Upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs that the lands were no longer needed for their protective purpose, the President issued executive orders in 1879 and 1884 restoring the lands to the public domain.
Procedural Posture:
- The Sioux Tribe filed a suit in the United States Court of Claims under a special jurisdictional act passed in 1920, seeking compensation for lands taken.
- The Court of Claims, as the court of first instance, denied recovery to the Sioux Tribe.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the 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 an executive order setting aside public lands for the use of an Indian tribe create a compensable property interest that requires the United States to pay compensation upon later restoring those lands to the public domain?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Byrnes
No, an executive order setting aside public lands for an Indian tribe does not create a compensable property interest. The Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to dispose of public property. While the President has the power to withdraw public lands from sale, as affirmed in United States v. Midwest Oil Co., this power derives from long-standing Congressional acquiescence and does not extend to conveying a permanent, compensable title without explicit delegation. Historical evidence, including reports from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, consistently described the Indians' interest in executive order reservations as a temporary license or tenancy at will, distinct from the vested rights secured by treaty or statute. Furthermore, the historical practice of revoking such executive orders without compensation, and Congress's occasional provision of funds as an 'act of grace' rather than a legal obligation, demonstrates a shared understanding by both the executive and legislative branches that these orders did not create vested property rights requiring compensation upon termination.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a critical distinction in federal Indian law between reservations created by treaty or statute and those created by executive order. It establishes that tribes lack a Fifth Amendment property interest in executive order lands, meaning the government can take back such lands without it constituting a compensable taking. This ruling significantly limits the scope of tribal property rights and reinforces Congress's plenary power over the disposition of public lands. Future claims by tribes for compensation for lost lands now depend heavily on the original instrument that created their reservation.
