United States v. Winans

Supreme Court of the United States
25 S. Ct. 662, 1905 U.S. LEXIS 1110, 198 U.S. 371 (1905)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A treaty with a Native American tribe that secures the right to fish at 'usual and accustomed places' reserves to the tribe a pre-existing right, not granted by the United States. This reserved right imposes a servitude, or easement, on private property that is superior to the rights of subsequent landowners and cannot be limited by state law.

Facts:

For generations, the Yakima Nation of Indians occupied and used lands in what is now the State of Washington for fishing, which was essential to their existence.
In 1859, the Yakima Nation entered into a treaty with the United States, ceding title to vast tracts of their land.
Article III of the treaty reserved certain rights to the Indians, including 'the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with citizens of the Territory.'
The United States later issued land patents to private individuals, including the respondents' predecessors, for property along the Columbia River that encompassed the Yakima Nation's traditional fishing grounds.
The State of Washington also granted these landowners title to the shore lands fronting their properties.
The respondents acquired this patented land and obtained licenses from the State of Washington to operate large 'fish wheels'.
These fish wheels, along with other actions by the landowners, physically obstructed the river and effectively excluded members of the Yakima Nation from accessing their traditional fishing places.

Procedural Posture:

The United States brought suit on behalf of the Yakima Nation against the respondents in the U.S. Circuit Court (a federal trial court) to enjoin them from obstructing the tribe's fishing rights.
The respondents' demurrer (a motion to dismiss) was overruled by the court.
After testimony was taken, the Circuit Court dismissed the suit, ruling that the treaty merely gave Indians the same rights as any other citizen and did not grant them a right to cross or use private land.
The United States, on behalf of the Yakima Nation, appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

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 that reserves to a Native American tribe the right to take fish at 'all usual and accustomed places' 'in common with citizens' grant an enforceable easement to access and use privately-owned lands, thereby preventing the landowners from excluding tribal members?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice McKenna

Yes. A treaty reserving fishing rights creates a continuing and enforceable easement on private land that prevents landowners from excluding tribal members. The court reasoned that treaties with Native American tribes must be interpreted as the tribes themselves would have understood them. The 1859 treaty was not a grant of rights to the Indians, but a 'grant of rights from them — a reservation of those not granted.' This reservation of the pre-existing right to fish at traditional locations imposed a servitude upon the land, meaning the right to access and use the land for fishing travels with the land title, even when sold to private owners. The phrase 'in common with citizens' means that citizens may also fish there, but it does not empower landowners to exclude the Indians. This federally protected treaty right is superior to both the state's power to issue licenses and the private property rights conferred by federal patents.

Dissenting - Justice White

Justice White dissented without a written opinion.

Analysis:

This case is foundational in federal Indian law because it established the 'reserved rights doctrine.' This doctrine holds that treaties are not grants of rights from the U.S. to tribes, but rather reservations of rights that tribes already possessed. The ruling ensures that these retained sovereign rights, such as fishing, hunting, and water access, are not extinguished by statehood or the transfer of land to private owners. By defining the treaty right as a 'servitude' that runs with the land, the Court created a durable property right for tribes that is protected against infringement by states and private parties, profoundly influencing treaty interpretation and natural resource litigation for over a century.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Winans (1905)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"