United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians
1938 U.S. LEXIS 1085, 58 S. Ct. 794, 304 U.S. 111 (1938)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A treaty granting an Indian tribe the right to "absolute and undisturbed use and occupation" of reservation land conveys beneficial ownership of the land itself, including the timber and mineral resources, for which the United States must provide just compensation if it takes the land.
Facts:
- In the Treaty of July 3, 1868, the United States set apart a reservation for the 'absolute and undisturbed use and occupation' of the Shoshone Tribe.
- The Shoshone Tribe agreed to make the reservation their permanent home.
- The treaty stipulated that no cession of the reservation would be valid unless approved by a majority of the tribe's adult male members.
- At the time the treaty was made, the reservation land was known to contain valuable mineral deposits—including gold, oil, and coal—and extensive timber.
- On March 19, 1878, the United States government, without the Shoshone Tribe's consent, permanently settled a band of Arapahoe Indians on the Shoshone reservation, effectively appropriating a portion of the tribe's land.
Procedural Posture:
- The Shoshone Tribe sued the United States in the Court of Claims to recover the value of reservation land taken by the government.
- The Court of Claims initially held the taking occurred in 1891 and awarded compensation based on the land's value at that time.
- On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court (in a prior proceeding) reversed, holding that the taking occurred on March 19, 1878, and remanded the case to the Court of Claims for further proceedings.
- On remand, the Court of Claims determined the 1878 value of the land, including its timber and mineral resources, and entered a judgment for the Shoshone Tribe for over $4.4 million.
- The United States appealed again, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Claims' decision to include the value of timber and minerals in the award.
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 a treaty granting an Indian tribe 'absolute and undisturbed use and occupation' of a reservation convey a compensable ownership interest in the timber and mineral resources on that land?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Butler
Yes. A treaty granting 'absolute and undisturbed use and occupation' conveys beneficial ownership of the land itself, including its constituent elements like timber and minerals. The lower court correctly included the value of these resources in its compensation award. Treaties with Indian tribes must be construed not in a narrow, technical sense, but as the Indians themselves would have naturally understood them. The purpose of this treaty was to provide a permanent home, and for all practical purposes, the tribe owned the land; the United States held only a 'naked fee' (legal title without beneficial interests). The tribe's right of perpetual occupancy is as sacred as a fee simple absolute title, and any ambiguities in the treaty must be resolved in their favor, consistent with the guardian-ward relationship between the U.S. and the tribe. Therefore, when the U.S. took the land, it became obligated to pay just compensation for its full value, including the timber and minerals.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Reed
Mr. Justice Reed dissents. (No opinion was filed).
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthened the concept of 'Indian title' by clarifying that treaty rights of 'use and occupation' are nearly equivalent to full beneficial ownership for the purposes of takings compensation. It established that such grants include valuable subsurface and surface resources, not merely a right to live on the land. The ruling reinforces the canon of construction that Indian treaties must be interpreted liberally in favor of the tribes, as they would have understood the terms. This precedent has been crucial in future cases involving tribal land claims and resource rights, ensuring that the valuation of taken lands reflects their complete economic worth.
