Skip to main content

Treaties remain Whimsical Political items

MINNESOTA v. MILLE LACS BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS

The US Supreme Court case of Minnesota v Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, No. 97-1337, decided March 24, 1999, is an interpretation of Native American current rights based on historical treaties. This case is a modern opinion upholding treaty rights from the early 1800s.

Full decision at: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1337.ZS.html

The State of Minnesota argued that the State retained authority over the Chippewa land ceded in an earlier treaty between the Chippewa and the US Government. At issue was whether or not the Chippewa Indians could still hunt and fish on land which they ceded to the US government in an earlier treaty.

The court opinion delivered by Justice O'Connor, held that the Chippewa Indians retained these rights guaranteed to them by the 1837 Treaty. Pp. 15—35.

In 1990 the Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians instituted suit in Federal District Court against the State of Minnesota, among others, seeking declaratory relief among other things, and an injunction against the State of Minnesota to prevent the state from interfering with their hunting and fishing rights granted in the 1837 Treaty. This gives tribes a viable venue for disputes with the States when they infringe on treaty rights.

Justice O'Connor goes into a lengthy discussion of the treaty language which states that the Chippewa Indians retained the right to hunt and fish on the ceded land. Later treaties left removal of the Chippewa Indians to the US President, with congressional approval or Constitutional authorization. Interesting in this opinion is the historical motivation for removal of the Indians from Wisconsin, that is the State of Minnesota felt the Indians were receiving annuity payments no part of which were going to benefit the state of Minnesota, therefore removal to the state of Minnesota would benefit the state. To further this aim, the Chippewas were told that their annuity payments would no longer be sent to their ceded land in Wisconsin but they would be sent to a location in the Minnesota Territory. Unfortunately many Chippewas died of measles and dysentery prior to the disbursement of the annuity payments. This experience forced the government to rethink it's position on removal finding it to be disastrous for the Indians.

The court further observed that in the treaty there was no inclusion or exclusion language of these hunting and fishing rights. The court then decided that absent express language including the relinquishment of these rights, they were retained by the tribe.

The court however left open the question as to whether or not the President may, now or in the future, revoke these rights. Their only decision was that the Executive order of 1850 was not severable from the invalid removal order and thus the hunting and fishing rights were retained by the Chippewa Indians to the ceded land. This is reminiscent of the Cherokee case in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee Nation and invalidated a removal order only to have President Andrew Jackson commence removal anyway.

This decision is interesting in that it seems to throw the treaty rights of Native American into the political arena. Presidents might be more easily swayed into upholding treaty rights if Native American votes were to support their candidacy.

Both Justice Thomas and the Chief Justice Rehnquist filed dissents to the majority opinion.

The Chief Justice equates the payment of money to the relinquishment of land as also including any hunting and fishing rights without an express provision in the treaty to do so. He also gives Executive Orders an implied consent of Congress giving them full legal effect when made without any necessary approval process by Congress. Justice O'Connor appears to have decided this case based on contract theories including severability of provisions within a contract, whereas the Chief Justice looks to a unilateral decision by one branch of government to invalidate an agreement by two parties, the Chippewa Indians and the US government, presumably Congress was involved in the making of this treaty as well.

Justice Rehnquist further finds that the language in the treaty was broad enough to encompass all rights including hunting and fishing rights, but he fails to recognize the meeting of the minds between the two parties at the time of making the Treaty. Whether or not the Chippewa Indians understood the language to include hunting and fishing rights and such lack of understanding could itself create an ambiguity, resolution of which would be in the Indian's favor, that is, that they retained the hunting and fishing rights of the ceded land. Although the Chief Justice languishes on the 103 year old precedence of this court, he does not expound on the wisdom or inhumanity of such precedence, opinions clearly decided in an extremely biased environment, which all can see was clearly against Native Americans.

Justice Thomas' dissent is of equal interest, considering he himself is a minority. His major concern seems to be with whether or not the principles of Federalism have been followed. Interesting is his argument that the 1837 treaty did not make any provision for future state regulation, perhaps an example of the lack of foresight on the government officials and their Indian policies. Native American relations in modern America involve both areas of state rights and federal rights, it is after all the federal government that governs tribes but by necessity the tribes and tribal lands are within the state boundaries creating an overlapping of both state and federal into tribal sovereignty.

Further Justice Thomas appears to set up the next case in this line as leaving open for future decision the issue of the states authority to regulate Indians off reservation activity. The states regulation here was over environmental concerns which they believed the Indian hunting and fishing interfered with, however, of all people Native Americans are the most environmentally conscious. I suspect the concern had more to do with the fact that Native Americans enjoyed a right which the citizens of the state of Minnesota did not.

This might bring to mind the question of reciprocity between sovereigns, will Native American Tribes retain jurisdiction over non Indians on Tribal Land.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Americanization of Native Americans

Americanization can refer to the policies of the United States government and public opinion that there is a standard set of cultural values that should be held in common by all citizens. Education was and is viewed as the primary method in the acculturation process. These opinions were harshly applied when it came to Americanization of Native Americans compared to immigrant populations who arrived with their "non-American traditions". The Americanization policies said that when indigenous people learned American customs and values they would soon merge tribal traditions with European-American culture and peacefully melt into the greater society. For example in the 1800s and early 1900s, traditional religious ceremonies were outlawed and it was mandatory for children to attend English speaking boarding schools where native languages and cultural traditions were forbidden. The Dawes Act of 1887 , which allotted tribal lands to individuals and resulted in an estimated total o

Indian Boarding Schools - the US Solution to the Indian Problem

American Indian Boarding Schools Haunt Many by Charla Bear This is the first in a two-part report. For the photos with this piece and the rest of the story: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16516865 May 13, 2008 Col. Richard H. Pratt founded the first of the off-reservation Native American boarding schools based on the philosophy that, according to a speech he made in 1892, "all the Indian there is in the race should be dead." CORBIS 'Kill the Indian...Save the Man' According to Col. Richard Pratt's speech in 1892: "A great general has said that the only good Indian is a dead one, and that high sanction of his destruction has been an enormous factor in promoting Indian massacres. In a sense, I agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save the man." From Need to 'National Tragedy' Early in the history of American Indian boarding schools, the

Cherokees and their California Connections

Sheriff Edward “Ned” Bushyhead http://sheriffmuseum.org/index.php?/Museum/comments/sheriff_edward_ned_bushyhead The San Diego Sheriff’s Department’s history is rich with men who were not only recognized as being excellent lawmen, but built often colorful reputations outside of law enforcement. From our first Sheriff, Agostin Harszthy, who moved north to start the California wine industry and who seemingly was eaten by an alligator, SDSO sheriffs were prominent figures throughout the history of the United States. San Diego County’s 12th sheriff, Edward “Ned” Wilkinson Bushyhead was no exception. Perhaps no character in all Cherokee history was more revered and respected by his people than Rev. Jesse Bushyhead, who was born in the old Cherokee Nation of southeastern Tennessee in September 1804. Called Unaduti by his Indian friends, he had two children with his first wife and nine children with his second wife, Eliza Wilkinson who was half Cherokee. The Bushyhead home was in a small Chero