Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. State of Minn.

Decision Date17 November 1997
Docket Number97-1768,97-1937 and 97-1938,97-1772,Nos. 97-1757,97-1764,97-1770,97-1774,97-1771,s. 97-1757
Citation124 F.3d 904
Parties28 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,183 MILLE LACS BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS; Arthur Gahbow; Walter Sutton; Carleen Benjamin; Joseph Dunkley, Plaintiffs-Appellees, United States of America; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewas; Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Sokaogan Chippewa Community; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. STATE OF MINNESOTA; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; Rodney Sando, Commissioner of Natural Resources, Defendants, County of Aitkin; County of Benton; County of Sherburne; County of Crow Wing; County of Isanti; County of Kanabec; County of Mille Lacs; County of Morrison; County of Pine, Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants. FOND DU LAC BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS; Robert Peacock; Peter Defoe; Clifton Rabideaux; Herman Wise; George Dupuis, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Arne CARLSON, Governor of Minnesota; Rodney Sando, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; Raymond B. Hitchcock, Assistant Commissioner of Operations, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Defendants, County of Aitkin; County of Benton; County of Sherburne; County of Crow Wing; County of Isanti; County of Kanabec; County of Mille Lacs; County of Morrison; County of Pine, Movants-Appellants. MILLE LACS BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS; Arthur Gahbow; Walter Sutton; Carleen Benjamin; Joseph Dunkley, Plaintiffs-Appellees, United States of America; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewas; Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Sokaogan Chippewa Community; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. STATE OF MINNESOTA; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Defendants, County of Aitkin; County of Benton; County of Sherburne; County of
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
Intervenors-Defendants-Appellees

James Martin Johnson, Olympia, WA, argued, for appellants County of Pine, Morrison, Mille Lacs, Kanabec, Crow Wing, Sherburne, Benton and Aitkin.

Stephen G. Froehle, Minneapolis, MN, argued, for appellants Gary Kiedrowski, Glenn Thompson, Leroy Burling, Joseph Karpen, Jenny Thompson, John W. Thompson, Michael Sheff and Robert J. Edmonds.

Peter Lund Tester, St. Paul, MN, argued, for appellants Raymond B. Hitchcock, Rodney Sando, Arne Carlson and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Douglas Endreson, Washington, DC, argued, for appellees George Dupuis, Herman Wise, Clifton Rabideaux, Peter Defoe, Robert Peacock and Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa Indians.

Marc D. Slonim, Seattle, WA, argued, for appellees Joseph Dunkley, Carleen Benjamin, Walter Sutton, Arthur Gahbow and Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians.

Elizabeth Ann Peterson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued, for intervenors.

Before McMILLIAN, LAY, and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges.

LAY, Circuit Judge.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Introduction

One hundred sixty years ago, near Fort Snelling, Minnesota, representatives of the United States and representatives of twelve bands of the Chippewa Nation negotiated a treaty which ceded Indian 1 title to certain lands in the Upper Midwest. Historical documents demonstrate that the government was interested in purchasing the land for purposes of harvesting its pine timber. See 1837 Treaty Journal 131; Letter from Commissioner of Indian Affairs Carey A. Harris to Henry Dodge, Wisconsin Territorial Governor, and General W.R. Smith (May 13, 1837). On July 29, 1837, the Bands signed a treaty ceding over thirteen million acres of land in present-day Wisconsin and Minnesota to the United States in exchange for money, goods, and supplies. Treaty with the Chippewas, July 29, 1837, 7 Stat. 536. Article V of the Treaty provided, "[T]he privilege of hunting, fishing, and gathering the wild rice, upon the lands, the rivers and the lakes included in the territory ceded, is guarantied to the Indians, during the pleasure of the President of the United States." These usufructuary rights form the subject matter of the present litigation.

In 1990, the Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians and some of its...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • Rhode Island Dept. of Environmental Mgmt. v. U.S.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • April 8, 2002
    ...... DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, State of Rhode Island, Plaintiffs, Appellees, . v. . ... See Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. Minnesota, 124 ......
  • Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. Janklow
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota
    • March 2, 2000
    ......v. . State of South Dakota, Defendant. . No. Civ97-1015. . ... the imposition of the excise tax 4 on Indians residing on the Rosebud Sioux Reservation. Judge ... for or on behalf of a recognized tribe, band or group of American Indians shall not be barred ... Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. Minnesota, 124 ......
  • Rhode Island Environmental v. U.S.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • August 30, 2002
    ...... DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, State Of Rhode Island, Plaintiffs, Appellees, . v. . ... See Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. Minnesota, 124 ......
  • Minnesota, ex rel. Hatch v. Hoeven
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of North Dakota
    • August 17, 2004
    ... . 331 F.Supp.2d 1074 . State of MINNESOTA, by its Attorney General Mike HATCH, ... decision, the Eighth Circuit decided Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. Minnesota, 124 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • "We Hold the Government to Its Word": How McGirt v. Oklahoma Revives Aboriginal Title.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 No. 7, May 2022
    • May 1, 2022
    ...expressly discussed--and "actually litigated"--in the earlier ICC action. See, e.g., Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. Minnesota, 124 F.3d 904, 925-26 (8th Cir. 1997) (holding that the ICC action did not "extinguish[] an important body of rights... without any mention" and "do[es] not ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT