Congress' Explicit Intent To Alter Reservation Boundaries Can Be Found in the Circumstances Surrounding the Act and in Subsequent Events
WISCONSIN v. THE STOCKBRIDGE-MUNEE COMMUNITY (January 20, 2009)
.jpg)
The Mohican ancestors of the Stockbridge-Munee Indians (“Tribe”) moved from western Massachusetts to New York and, eventually, to Wisconsin early in the 1800s. Additional pressure to move yet again produced two factions within the Tribe – those that wanted to move farther west and those that wanted to eliminate the tribal structure, remain in Wisconsin, and become full U.S. citizens (more history here). A treaty was eventually entered into in 1856. The Tribe gave up the land it had in return for the creation of a reservation consisting of the Bartelme and Red Springs townships, also in Wisconsin. Problems with the land – it was heavily forested and hard to farm but the Tribe was not allowed to sell the timber – and continued internal conflicts led to further Congressional intervention. Pursuant to acts passed in 1871, 1893 and 1906, much of the land was sold, proceeds were divided among tribal members, some members were ousted from the Tribe, and some were later reinstated. Finally, tribal members agreed to accept land or cash in lieu in full settlement of their rights, including those arising under the 1856 treaty. Years later, the Department of the Interior helped the Tribe reacquire some, but not all, of the original two townships. Why does all of this matter? Because the Tribe is now allowed to operate gaming activities within the boundaries of its reservation. The Tribe bought the Pine Hills golf club in 1993 and operates slot machines there. Wisconsin thinks Pine Hills is not within the current boundaries of the reservation. It sued to enjoin the gambling and for a declaration setting forth the boundaries of the reservation. The district court granted summary judgment to Wisconsin. The Tribe appeals.
In their opinion, Judges Posner, Ripple and Evans affirmed. The Court made the “unremarkable” observation that a reservation, once established, must remain intact unless and until Congress explicitly alters it. An intent by Congress to do so cannot be inferred lightly. A court should first look at the language of a statute. In the absence of a clear intent, a court can look at the circumstances surrounding the act, and even subsequent events. The Court addressed the 1871 act and found, based on the language of the Act and surrounding circumstances, that Congress meant to reduce the size of the reservation. The Court noted that Congress was addressing the internal conflict in the Tribe. It expected many members of the Tribe to accept a share of the proceeds of the sale of the property and sever ties with the Tribe. A smaller Tribe needed less land. The Court also pointed out that the 1871 Act was consistently interpreted afterward as having reduced the size of the reservation. The Court next addressed the 1906 Act. It, too, lacked an explicit statement of Congressional intent. Again, the Court considered the circumstances. It concluded that all parties – Congress, the Department of Interior, the Tribe – all expected the 1871 Act to complete the allotment of land to the Tribe and extinguish the 1856 reservation in its entirety. One key fact, in the Court’s opinion, was that the land was allotted in fee simple, a requirement for the abolition of the reservation. Again, the Court noted that subsequent events supported the conclusion that the reservation had been eliminated by the Act. By 1910, all the original reservation property had been sold or was held by members of the Tribe in fee simple. The Court concluded that the current extent of the reservation is only that which has been reacquired with the assistance of the Department of the Interior – and it does not include the Pine Hills property.
Judge Ripple concurred, only to emphasize the point that the Court did not in any way depart from the general rule that Congress must be explicit in any attempt to alter or disestablish a reservation.
