Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States
99 L. Ed. 2d 314, 348 U.S. 272, 1955 U.S. LEXIS 1186 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The taking by the United States of unrecognized 'original Indian title' or 'aboriginal title' is not a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment. Such title constitutes a right of occupancy at the sovereign's discretion, which may be extinguished by the sovereign at any time without compensation.
Facts:
- The Tee-Hit-Ton Indians, a clan of the Tlingit Tribe, have used and occupied over 350,000 acres of land in Alaska since time immemorial for hunting, fishing, and seasonal villages.
- The United States acquired sovereignty over Alaska from Russia in 1867.
- The Tee-Hit-Tons' claim to the land was based on this long-standing aboriginal use and occupancy, not on a treaty, statute, or other formal grant from the United States.
- In 1947, Congress authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to sell timber from the Tongass National Forest, which encompassed the lands claimed by the Tee-Hit-Tons.
- The authorizing resolution specified that the sale could proceed 'notwithstanding any claim of possessory rights.'
- Pursuant to this resolution, the Secretary of Agriculture contracted for the sale of timber from the Tee-Hit-Tons' claimed lands in 1951.
Procedural Posture:
- The Tee-Hit-Ton Indians filed suit against the United States in the U.S. Court of Claims, seeking compensation for a taking of timber under the Fifth Amendment.
- The Court of Claims held that the Tee-Hit-Tons' interest in the land was 'original Indian title' or a 'right of occupancy.'
- The Court of Claims concluded that this type of interest, without specific congressional recognition, was not a compensable property right.
- The Court of Claims dismissed the petition.
- 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:
Does the Fifth Amendment require the United States to provide compensation when it takes timber from lands occupied by Native Americans under 'original Indian title' that has not been formally recognized by Congress as a compensable property right?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Reed
No. The Fifth Amendment does not require compensation for the taking of land held under unrecognized 'original Indian title' because such title is not a constitutionally protected property right against the United States. The Court reasoned that under the doctrine of discovery, the United States gained ultimate title to the lands, leaving Native Americans with only a 'right of occupancy' that the sovereign could extinguish at will without legal obligation. The Court found that various Acts concerning Alaska, including the Organic Act of 1884, merely preserved the status quo and did not constitute the clear congressional 'recognition' necessary to convert this permissive occupancy into a compensable property right. Citing Johnson v. McIntosh, the court affirmed that the extinguishment of aboriginal title is a political, not a justiciable, issue.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. The United States is required to provide compensation because Congress did recognize the Tee-Hit-Tons' property rights in the Alaska Organic Act of 1884. The dissent argued that the Act's plain language—stating that Indians 'shall not be disturbed in the possession of any lands... now claimed by them'—and its legislative history demonstrate a clear intent to protect and recognize existing Indian land claims. This recognition converted their interest into a compensable right, and the case should be remanded to determine the extent of that right.
Analysis:
This decision established a critical and controversial distinction between 'recognized' and 'unrecognized' Indian title, solidifying the principle that aboriginal land claims are not protected by the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause unless Congress has affirmatively granted legal recognition. It reinforces the plenary power of Congress over Indian affairs and limits the ability of tribes to seek constitutional remedies for the loss of ancestral lands. The ruling makes future tribal land claims heavily dependent on proving specific statutory or treaty-based recognition of their property rights, rather than relying on aboriginal possession alone.
Unlock the full brief for Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States