United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians
ArgueDate=March 24
ArgueYear=1980
DecideDate=June 30
DecideYear=1980
FullName=United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, et al.
USVol=448
USPage=371
Citation=100 S. Ct. 2716; 65 L. Ed. 2d 844; 1980 U.S. LEXIS 147
Prior=Certiorari to the United States Court of Claims
Subsequent=
Holding=
SCOTUS=1975-1981
Majority=Blackmun
JoinMajority=Burger, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell, Stevens; White (parts III, V)
Concurrence=White
Dissent=Rehnquist
LawsApplied=

"United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians", 448 U.S. 371 (1980),cite web|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=448&page=371|title= UNITED STATES v. SIOUX NATION OF INDIANS, 448 U.S. 371 (1980)|publisher=FindLaw|accessdate=2008-06-13] [ [http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-v-sioux-nation United States v. Sioux Nation: Information and Much More from Answers.com ] ]

Background

In 1868, the Treaty of Fort Laramie ending Red Cloud's War "United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians", 448 U.S. 371, 376 (1980).(also known as the Powder River War) was signed by the United States and the Sioux nation, at Fort Laramie in the Wyoming Territory, guaranteeing to the Sioux ownership of the Black Hills, and further land and hunting rights in South Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana.

The treaty included articles intended to "ensure the civilization" of the Sioux; financial incentives for them to farm land and become competitive; and stipulations that minors should be provided with an "English education" at a "mission building". To this end the U.S. government included provisions that white teachers, blacksmiths, and a farmer, a miller, a carpenter, an engineer and a government agent should take up residence within the reservation.

By the terms of the treaty, cession of any part of the reservation must be under a treaty executed and signed by at least three fourths of all the adult male Indians occupying the land. ["United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians", 448 U.S. 371, 376 (1980).]

While peace persisted for a few years after the treaty was signed but more and more speculation was focused on the Black Hills area that the area was rich in gold and silver. In 1874, the Army undertook an exploratory mission to discover the truth of the area's mineral resources and to establish a military post. ["Id." at 376-377.] General Custer's reports of the great gold and timber resources and the grazing and cultivation promise of the Black Hills area received wide circulation. ["Id."]

During the winter of 1875-1876 the Sioux Indians were hunting in unceded territory north of the North Platte River when, for reasons unknown, the Commissioner sent a message to the Indians that if they did not return to the reservation land immediately they would be treated as hostile. Unfortunately, the terrible winter conditions made it impossible for the Indians to return. As a result, the Indians were declared hostile on February 1st which led to the Battle of the Little Bighorn on June 25th. ["Id." at 379.]

In the meantime, Congress was completely dissatisfied with the Sioux reservation's failure to become self-sufficient. Congress declared in August of 1876 that they would no longer provide any appropriations to the Sioux reservation unless they abrogated their hunting rights outside of the reservation, ceded the Black Hills to the U.S. and reached an agreement with the Government that would make them self-sufficient. ["Id." at 380.] In 1877, one year after the resounding defeat of General Custer at the Battle of the Little Bighorn, the U.S. government seized the Black Hills by creating a new treaty that was signed by only a tenth of the males of the Sioux Nation in violation of the Treaty of Fort Laramie, which required three fourths.

Legal Analysis

More than a century later, after decades of failed legal efforts to regain the Black Hills, the Sioux nation achieved a victory in federal court. The United States Court of Claims held that there had been a taking and the tribe was entitled to just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. ["Id." at 389-390.]

The main issue at argument however was whether the Court of Claims should have applied the test held in the case "Three Tribes of Fort Berthold v. United States," [http://openjurist.org/390/f2d/686/fort-berthold-reservation-v-united-states 390 F.2d 686] (Ct. Cl. 1968) in which the Court of Claims held that "Congress cannot simultaneously act as trustee for the benefits of the Indians...and exercise its sovereign power of eminent domain." ["Fort Berthold v. United States," [http://openjurist.org/390/f2d/686/fort-berthold-reservation-v-united-states 390 F.2d 686] , 691 (Ct. Cl. 1968).] The Supreme Court held the Court of Claims did follow the correct legal standard by holding that Congress did not exercise good faith in taking the Black Hills and the tribe was owed just compensation. ["U.S. v. Sioux Nation," 448 U.S. at 416.]

On June 30, 1980, the Supreme Court upheld an award of $105 million to eight tribes of Sioux Indians as compensation ($17.1 million for the market value of the land in 1877 and $88 million in 5% per annum simple interest between 1877 and 1980), ["Id." at 389-390.] but the court did not award land. This compensation was declined, however, because acceptance would legally terminate Sioux demands for return of the land; accruing compound interest on the settlement has brought the value of the claim to over $400 million as of 2008.

Dissent

Associate Justice William Rehnquist was the lone dissenter in this case. His main argument was that Congress had taken the Black Hills in exchange for "rations and grazing lands- an exchange Congress believed to be in the best interests of the Sioux and the Nation." ["Id." at 424.] In his dissent, Justice Rehnquist holds firm to what he believed was a misinterpretation of the historical facts. ["Id." at 425-426.]

ee also

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 448
* (Unrecognized) Lakota State

Further reading

*Lazarus, Edward. "Black Hills/White Justice: The Sioux Nation versus the United States, 1775 to the Present." New York: HarperCollins. 1991. Pp. xvii, 486. ISBN 0803279876
**Reviewed in [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE1D81738F93AA25751C0A964958260&pagewanted=print "Another Name for Columbus Day"] by Herbert Mitgang, "New York Times," February 19, 1992.

References