United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad
314 U.S. 339, 1941 U.S. LEXIS 1124, 62 S. Ct. 248 (1942)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An Indian tribe's aboriginal right of occupancy, based on immemorial possession, is a recognized legal right that can only be extinguished by the United States. A tribe's request for and acceptance of a reservation can constitute a "voluntary cession" that extinguishes its tribal claims to ancestral lands outside the reservation's boundaries.
Facts:
- The Walapai (Hualpai) Tribe occupied a definable territory in northwestern Arizona as its ancestral home from time immemorial.
- In 1866, Congress passed an act granting land to the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Co., Santa Fe's predecessor, which included a provision that the U.S. would extinguish Indian title to the lands "only by their voluntary cession."
- In 1874, the U.S. Army forcibly removed the Walapai to the Colorado River reservation, but they left within a year and returned to their ancestral lands.
- By 1881, facing increased pressure from white settlers who were fencing off water sources, the Walapai, in a council, formally requested that the U.S. government create a specific reservation for them.
- In 1883, President Chester A. Arthur, acting on the tribe's request, issued an Executive Order creating the Walapai Indian Reservation.
- The land grant to the railroad included portions of the Walapai's ancestral lands, some of which were inside the 1883 reservation and some of which were outside.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States sued Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Co. in U.S. District Court to quiet title to lands on behalf of the Walapai Tribe.
- The railroad filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency.
- The District Court granted the railroad's motion to dismiss.
- The United States, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal.
- The United States successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court 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:
Does an Indian tribe's request for and acceptance of a reservation constitute a voluntary cession that extinguishes its aboriginal title to ancestral lands located outside the reservation boundaries?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. A tribe's request for and acceptance of a reservation can operate as a voluntary cession of tribal land claims outside the reservation. The long-standing policy of the United States is to respect Indian right of occupancy, or aboriginal title, which is as sacred as the fee simple of whites and does not require a formal treaty or statute for its recognition. However, the power to extinguish this title rests exclusively with the United States. While extinguishment cannot be lightly implied and a forced removal does not constitute a valid "voluntary cession," the historical circumstances surrounding the creation of the 1883 Walapai Reservation demonstrate such a cession. The Walapai, seeing their domain being preempted by settlers, requested the reservation to secure a permanent home. Their acquiescence in this arrangement is legally equivalent to a relinquishment of their tribal claims to lands outside the reservation. Therefore, the tribe's aboriginal title to lands outside the 1883 reservation was extinguished, but their title to lands within it was not.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that aboriginal title, while a recognized property right, can be extinguished by means other than a formal treaty. The Court established that a tribe's actions, such as requesting a reservation in response to external pressures, can be legally interpreted as a "voluntary cession" of claims to lands outside that reservation. This decision creates a precedent for examining the historical context of reservation formations to determine the status of aboriginal title. It distinguishes between coercive government acts, which do not extinguish title, and tribe-initiated arrangements, which can, thereby influencing how future aboriginal land claims are litigated.
