Lexplug logoLexplug

Solem v. Bartlett

Supreme Court of the United States
1984 U.S. LEXIS 34, 79 L. Ed. 2d 443, 465 U.S. 463 (1984)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A congressional act that opens parts of an Indian reservation to non-Indian settlement does not diminish the reservation's boundaries unless there is substantial and compelling evidence of clear congressional intent to do so. Ambiguities in statutory language, legislative history, and subsequent events are resolved in favor of the tribes, preserving the original reservation boundaries.


Facts:

  • In 1889, Congress established the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation in South Dakota.
  • The Act of May 29, 1908, authorized the Secretary of the Interior to 'sell and dispose of' a portion of the unallotted lands within the reservation to non-Indian homesteaders.
  • The 1908 Act stipulated that the proceeds from the land sales would be deposited into the U.S. Treasury to the credit of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.
  • Following the Act, many members of the Tribe received individual allotments in the opened area, and the tribal government established its headquarters there.
  • The opened lands were not widely settled by non-Indians, and the area retained its 'Indian character,' with a population roughly evenly divided between tribal members and non-Indians.
  • In 1979, John Bartlett, an enrolled member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, committed the crime of attempted rape within the area opened for settlement by the 1908 Act.

Procedural Posture:

  • The State of South Dakota prosecuted John Bartlett, a tribal member, in state court for attempted rape.
  • Bartlett pleaded guilty and was sentenced in state court.
  • After exhausting state remedies, Bartlett filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota, arguing the state lacked criminal jurisdiction.
  • The District Court granted the petition, finding the crime occurred within 'Indian country.'
  • The State of South Dakota (petitioner) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
  • The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed the District Court's ruling in favor of Bartlett (respondent).
  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict between the Eighth Circuit and the South Dakota Supreme Court on the issue.

Locked

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 Act of May 29, 1908, which authorized the sale and disposition of unallotted lands on the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation, diminish the boundaries of that reservation?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Marshall

No, the Act of May 29, 1908, did not diminish the boundaries of the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation. The Court's analysis is guided by a strong presumption against diminishment, which requires substantial and compelling evidence of congressional intent to alter reservation boundaries. The Court evaluated three factors: 1) the statutory language, 2) the circumstances surrounding the Act's passage, and 3) the subsequent treatment and demographic history of the area. First, the Act's operative language authorizing the Secretary to 'sell and dispose' of lands suggests the government was acting as a sales agent for the Tribe, contrasting sharply with the explicit language of 'cession' found in acts that have been held to diminish reservations. While isolated phrases like 'reservations thus diminished' exist, they are not dispositive when viewing the Act as a whole. Second, unlike other diminishment cases, the 1908 Act was not based on a negotiated agreement where the Tribe consented to cede its territory, and the legislative history lacks a clear statement of congressional intent to diminish. Third, the subsequent history shows that the opened area never lost its Indian character; tribal presence remained strong, and non-Indian settlement was sparse. Given the lack of clear intent across all factors, the presumption against diminishment prevails.



Analysis:

This case solidifies the modern analytical framework for determining whether surplus land acts diminished Indian reservation boundaries. It establishes a strong presumption against diminishment that can only be overcome by clear evidence of congressional intent, providing significant protection for tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction. The decision emphasizes that statutory language of sale alone is insufficient and requires courts to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the historical context and subsequent demographics of the land. This approach prevents 'de facto' diminishment based solely on the sale of land to non-Indians and ensures that ambiguities are resolved in favor of the tribes.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Solem v. Bartlett (1984) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Solem v. Bartlett