South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe
139 L. Ed. 2d 773, 522 US 329, 1998 U.S. LEXIS 647 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a federal surplus land act contains explicit language of cession and provides for a fixed-sum payment for the unallotted lands, it creates a nearly insurmountable presumption that Congress intended to diminish the boundaries of the affected Indian reservation.
Facts:
- In 1858, the United States and the Yankton Sioux Tribe entered into a treaty that established a 430,405-acre reservation in the territory that would become South Dakota.
- Following the 1887 Dawes Act, the U.S. government allotted tracts of this reservation land to individual tribal members, leaving approximately 168,000 acres of unallotted 'surplus' land held in common by the Tribe.
- In 1892, U.S. commissioners negotiated an agreement with the Yankton Sioux Tribe for the U.S. to acquire these unallotted lands for a fixed payment of $600,000.
- Article I of the agreement stated that the Tribe would 'cede, sell, relinquish, and convey' all its interest in the unallotted lands.
- Article XVIII of the agreement, a saving clause, stipulated that nothing in the agreement should be construed to abrogate the 1858 treaty, which would remain in 'full force and effect.'
- Congress ratified the agreement in the Act of August 15, 1894, and in 1895, President Cleveland issued a proclamation opening the ceded lands to settlement by non-Indians, who rapidly acquired them.
- In 1992, the Southern Missouri Recycling and Waste Management District, a consortium of South Dakota counties, acquired a fee-patented tract of this formerly ceded land from a non-Indian owner to construct a municipal solid waste landfill.
Procedural Posture:
- The Southern Missouri Recycling and Waste Management District obtained a permit from the South Dakota Board of Minerals and the Environment to construct a landfill.
- The Yankton Sioux Tribe filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota to enjoin construction, arguing the site was in Indian country subject to federal environmental regulations.
- The District Court held that the 1894 Act did not diminish the reservation and that the site remained in Indian country.
- The State of South Dakota, as a third-party defendant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Congress did not intend to diminish the reservation.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted 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:
Did the Act of August 15, 1894, which ratified an agreement for the sale of surplus lands, diminish the boundaries of the Yankton Sioux Reservation as established by an 1858 treaty?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
Yes, the 1894 Act diminished the Yankton Sioux Reservation. The Court's analysis rests on a three-part framework focusing on the statutory language, the historical context, and the subsequent treatment of the land. The Act's explicit language of cession—'cede, sell, relinquish, and convey'—coupled with the 'sum certain' payment of $600,000, creates a 'nearly conclusive' presumption of diminishment, as established in precedents like DeCoteau. The Tribe's reliance on the saving clause in Article XVIII is unpersuasive; a literal reading that preserves the 1858 reservation boundaries would be an 'absurd conclusion' that eviscerates the entire land sale. Instead, the Court interprets the saving clause as intended to protect the Tribe's rights to federal annuities under the 1858 treaty, a major point of concern during negotiations. The historical context, including the era's assimilationist policy and language from commissioners urging the Tribe to 'break down the barriers,' supports the finding of diminishment. Finally, the subsequent history of state jurisdiction over the area and the demographic shift to a majority non-Indian population further reinforce this conclusion. Therefore, the unallotted ceded lands are no longer Indian country and are subject to state jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the analytical framework for reservation diminishment cases established in Solem v. Bartlett, placing immense weight on explicit statutory language of cession and fixed compensation. It significantly narrows the potential impact of 'saving clauses' in such agreements, interpreting them pragmatically in light of negotiation history rather than as literal shields against diminishment. The ruling demonstrates that even with canons of construction favoring tribes, clear textual evidence of congressional intent to diminish is difficult to overcome. This precedent has profound jurisdictional implications, confirming state authority over vast areas of formerly tribal land and affecting tribal sovereignty, regulation, and economic development.
