Minnesota v Chippewa Indians

Decision Date24 March 1999
Docket Number971337
Citation143 L.Ed.2d 270,119 S.Ct. 1187,526 U.S. 172
Parties124 F.3d 904, affirmed. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 119 S.Ct. 1187 143 L.Ed.2d 2701337 MINNESOTA, et al., PETITIONERS v. MILLE LACS BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS et al. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT [
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Justice O'Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.

In 1837, the United States entered into a Treaty with several Bands of Chippewa Indians. Under the terms of this Treaty, the Indians ceded land in present-day Wisconsin and Minnesota to the United States, and the United States guaranteed to the Indians certain hunting, fishing, and gathering rights on the ceded land. We must decide whether the Chippewa Indians retain these usufructuary rights today. The State of Minnesota argues that the Indians lost these rights through an Executive Order in 1850, an 1855 Treaty, and the admission of Minnesota into the Union in 1858. After an examination of the historical record, we conclude that the Chippewa retain the usufructuary rights guaranteed to them under the 1837 Treaty.

I
A

In 1837, several Chippewa Bands, including the respondent Bands here, were summoned to Fort Snelling (near present-day St. Paul, Minnesota) for the negotiation of a treaty with the United States. The United States representative at the negotiations, Wisconsin Territorial Governor Henry Dodge, told the assembled Indians that the United States wanted to purchase certain Chippewa lands east of the Mississippi River, lands located in present-day Wisconsin and Minnesota. App. 46 (1837 Journal of Treaty Negotiations). The Chippewa agreed to sell the land to the United States, but they insisted on preserving their right to hunt, fish, and gather in the ceded territory. See, e.g., id., at 70, 75 76. In response to this request, Governor Dodge stated that he would "make known to your Great Father, your request to be permitted to make sugar, on the lands; and you will be allowed, during his pleasure, to hunt and fish on them." Id., at 78. To these ends, the parties signed a treaty on July 29, 1837. In the first two articles of the 1837 Treaty, the Chippewa ceded land to the United States in return for 20 annual payments of money and goods. The United States also, in the fifth article of the Treaty, guaranteed to the Chippewa the right to hunt, fish, and gather on the ceded lands:

"The privilege of hunting, fishing, and gathering the wild rice, upon the lands, the rivers and the lakes included in the territory ceded, is guarantied [sic] to the Indians, during the pleasure of the President of the United States." 1837 Treaty with the Chippewa, 7 Stat. 537.

In 1842, many of the same Chippewa Bands entered into another Treaty with the United States, again ceding additional lands to the Federal Government in return for annuity payments of goods and money, while reserving usufructuary rights on the ceded lands. 1842 Treaty with the Chippewa, 7 Stat. 591. This Treaty, however, also contained a provision providing that the Indians would be "subject to removal therefrom at the pleasure of the President of the United States." Art. 6, id., at 592.

In the late 1840's, pressure mounted to remove the Chippewa to their unceded lands in the Minnesota Territory. On September 4, 1849, Minnesota Territorial Governor Alexander Ramsey urged the Territorial Legislature to ask the President to remove the Chippewa from the ceded land. App. 878 (Report and Direct Testimony of Dr. Bruce M. White) (hereinafter White Report). The Territorial Legislature complied by passing, in October 1849, "Joint Resolutions relative to the removal of the Chippewa Indians from the ceded lands within the Territory of Minnesota." App. to Pet. for Cert. 567 (hereinafter Joint Resolution). The Joint Resolution urged:

"[T]o ensure the security and tranquility of the white settlements in an extensive and valuable district of this Territory, the Chippewa Indians should be removed from all lands within the Territory to which the Indian Title has been extinguished, and that the privileges given to them by Article Fifth [of the 1837 Treaty] and Article Second [of the 1842 Treaty] be revoked." Ibid.

The Territorial Legislature directed its resolution to Congress, but it eventually made its way to President Zachary Taylor. App. 674 (Report and Direct Testimony of Professor Charles E. Cleland) (hereinafter Cleland Report). It is unclear why the Territorial Legislature directed this resolution to Congress and not to the President. One possible explanation is that, although the 1842 Treaty gave the President authority to remove the Chippewa from that land area, see 1842 Treaty with the Chippewa, Art. 6, 7 Stat. 592, the 1837 Treaty did not confer such authority on the President. Therefore, any action to remove the Chippewa from the 1837 ceded lands would require congressional approval. See App. 674 (Cleland Report).

The historical record provides some clues into the impetus behind this push to remove the Chippewa. In his statement to the Territorial Legislature, Governor Ramsey asserted that the Chippewa needed to be removed because the white settlers in the Sauk Rapids and Swan River area were complaining about the privileges given to the Chippewa Indians. Id., at 878 (White Report). Similarly, the Territorial Legislature urged removal of the Chippewa "to ensure the security and tranquility of the white settlements" in the area. App. to Pet. for Cert. 567 (Joint Resolution). The historical evidence suggests, however, that the white settlers were complaining about the Winnebago Indians, not the Chippewa, in the Sauk Rapids area. See App. 671 672 (Cleland Report). There is also evidence that Minnesotans wanted Indians moved from Wisconsin and Michigan to Minnesota because a large Indian presence brought economic benefits with it. Specifically, an Indian presence provided opportunities to trade with Indians in exchange for their annuity payments, and to build and operate Indian agencies, schools, and farms in exchange for money. The presence of these facilities in an area also opened opportunities for patronage jobs to staff these facilities. See id., at 668 671; id., at 1095 (White Report). See also id., at 149 150 (letter from Rice to Ramsey, Dec. 1, 1849) ("Minnesota would reap the benefit [from the Chippewa's removal] whereas now their annuities pass via Detroit and not one dollar do our inhabitants get"). The District Court concluded in this case that "Minnesota politicians, including Ramsey, advocated removal of the Wisconsin Chippewa to Minnesota because they wanted to obtain more of the economic benefits generated by having a large number of Indians residing in their territory." 861 F. Supp. 784, 803 (Minn. 1994).

Whatever the impetus behind the removal effort, President Taylor responded to this pressure by issuing an Executive Order on February 6, 1850. The order provided:

"The privileges granted temporarily to the Chippewa Indians of the Mississippi, by the Fifth Article of the Treaty made with them on the 29th of July 1837, 'of hunting, fishing and gathering the wild rice, upon the lands, the rivers and the lakes included in the territory ceded' by that treaty to the United States; and the right granted to the Chippewa Indians of the Mississippi and Lake Superior, by the Second Article of the treaty with them of October 4th 1842, of hunting on the territory which they ceded by that treaty, 'with the other usual privileges of occupancy until required to remove by the President of the United States,' are hereby revoked; and all of the said Indians remaining on the lands ceded as aforesaid, are required to remove to their unceded lands." App. to Pet. for Cert. 565.

The officials charged with implementing this order understood it primarily as a removal order, and they proceeded to implement it accordingly. See Record, Doc. No. 311, Plaintiffs' Exh. 88 (letter from Brown to Ramsey, Feb. 6, 1850); App. 161 (letter from Ramsey to Livermore, Mar. 4, 1850). See also 861 F. Supp., at 805 (citing Plaintiffs' Exh. 201 (letter from Livermore to Ramsey, April 2, 1850)) (describing circular prepared to notify Indians of Executive Order); App. 1101 1102 (White Report) (describing circular and stating that "the entire thrust" of the circular had to do with removal).

The Government hoped to entice the Chippewa to remove to Minnesota by changing the location where the annuity payments the payments for the land cessions would be made. The Chippewa were to be told that their annuity payments would no longer be made at La Pointe, Wisconsin (within the Chippewa's ceded lands), but, rather, would be made at Sandy Lake, on unceded lands, in the Minnesota Territory. The Government's first annuity payment under this plan, however, ended in disaster. The Chippewa were told they had to be at Sandy Lake by October 25 to receive their 1850 annuity payment. See B. White, The Regional Context of the Removal Order of 1850, §6, pp. 6 9 6 10 (Mar. 1994). By November 10, almost 4,000 Chippewa had assembled at Sandy Lake to receive the payment, but the annuity goods were not completely distributed until December 2. Id., at 6 10. In the meantime, around 150 Chippewa died in an outbreak of measles and dysentery; another 230 Chippewas died on the winter trip home to Wisconsin. App. 228 229 (letter from Buffalo to Lea, Nov. 6, 1851).

The Sandy Lake annuity experience intensified opposition to the removal order among the Chippewa as well as among non-Indian residents of the area. See id., at 206 207 (letter from Warren to Ramsey, Jan. 21, 1851); id., at 214 (letter from Lea to Stuart, June 3, 1851) (describing opposition to the order). See also Record, Doc. No. 311, Plaintiffs' Exh. 93 (Michigan and Wisconsin citizens voice their objections to the order to the President). In the face of this opposition, Commissioner of Indian Affairs Luke Lea wrote to the Secretary of the Interior recommending...

To continue reading

Request your trial
180 cases
  • Casa De Md., Inc. v. Wolf
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • September 11, 2020
    ...MD/DC/DE Broadcasters Ass'n v. F.C.C. , 236 F.3d 13, 22 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ; see also Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians , 526 U.S. 172, 191, 119 S.Ct. 1187, 143 L.Ed.2d 270 (1999) (Unless "it is evident that the [lawmaking body] would not have enacted those provisions which are......
  • U.S. v. Mueffelman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • July 26, 2004
    ...covering regulations applicable to the right of first hire portion was severable); see also, Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172, 119 S.Ct. 1187, 143 L.Ed.2d 270 (1999) (Executive Order was insufficient to revoke the Chippewa's usufructuary rights because it was n......
  • Cunningham v. Matrix Fin. Servs., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • March 31, 2021
    ...into the propriety of severance is "essentially an inquiry into legislative intent." Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians , 526 U.S. 172, 191, 119 S.Ct. 1187, 143 L.Ed.2d 270 (1999). And "[u]nless it is evident that the Legislature would not have enacted [the statutory provision......
  • City of Roseville v. Norton
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • September 11, 2002
    ...fundamental attributes of state sovereignty when it admits new States into the Union." Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172, 203-04, 119 S.Ct. 1187, 143 L.Ed.2d 270 (1999). Thus, the "Federal Government ... cannot dispose of a right possessed by the State under the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
23 books & journal articles
  • "A TRAVESTY OF A MOCKERY OF A SHAM": THE FEDERAL TRUST DUTY AND INDIAN SELF-DETERMINATION
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Natural Resources Development and Environmental Regulation in Indian Country (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...one recent decision signals the court's willingness to consider such a course. See Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 119 S. Ct. 1187 (1999). Mille Lacs Band invalidated an 1850 executive order purporting to terminate an Indian tribe's usufructary rights retained in an 1837 t......
  • Severability as Conditionality
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 64-5, 2015
    • Invalid date
    ...S. Ct. at 2607; Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N. New Eng., 546 U.S. 320, 330 (2006); Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172, 191 (1999); Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U.S. 641, 653 (1984) (plurality opinion); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 108 (1976) (per curiam); United......
  • Surviving Castro-huerta: the Historical Perseverance of the Basic Policy of Worcester v. Georgia Protecting Tribal Autonomy, Notwithstanding One Supreme Court Opinion's Errant Narrative to the Contrary
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 74-3, March 2023
    • Invalid date
    ...Wyoming, 139 S. Ct. 1686, 1694-97 (2019), after having partially overruled Race Horse in Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172, 206-07 (1999)); see also infra notes 185-191 and accompanying text (discussing Race Horse). 62. Castro-Huerta, 142 S. Ct. at 2520 (Gorsuch......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Suplemmentary Materials
    • January 1, 2007
    ...Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456, 101 S.Ct. 715, 66 L.Ed.2d 659 (1981), 871, 873 Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172, 119 S.Ct. 1187, 143 L.Ed.2d 270 (1999), 394 Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Kelley, 427 F.3d 1106 (8th Cir. 2005), 1510 Minor......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 provisions
  • Minn. R., Part 6264.0400 [Effective Until 11/1/2024] Designated Special Management Waters
    • United States
    • Minnesota Administrative Rules 2023 Edition Agency 158. Natural Resources Department Chapter 6264. Designated Waters Experimental and Special Management Waters
    • January 1, 2023
    ...for fish harvest in the 1837 Ceded Territory in compliance with the court ruling in Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa v. Minnesota, 119 S.Ct. 1187 (1999). Changes shall be posted at water access sites and the Department Natural Resources website. G. While a person is on or fishing in Mille Lacs L......
  • Minn. R., Part 6264.0400 [Effective 11/1/2024] Designated Special Management Waters
    • United States
    • Minnesota Administrative Rules 2023 Edition Agency 158. Natural Resources Department Chapter 6264. Designated Waters Experimental and Special Management Waters
    • January 1, 2023
    ...for fish harvest in the 1837 Ceded Territory in compliance with the court ruling in Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa v. Minnesota, 119 S.Ct. 1187 (1999). Changes shall be posted at water access sites and the Department Natural Resources Web site. E. While a person is on or fishing in Mille Lacs ......
  • Arizona Administrative Register, Volume 23, Issue 09, March 3, 2017, p. 483-572
    • United States
    • Arizona Register
    • Invalid date
    ...this authority is shared with the Federal Government when the Federal Government exercises one of its enumerated con- stitutional powers.’ 526 U.S. 172, 204 (1999). In Mille Lacs, the Court upheld Chippewa Indian rights under an 1837 treaty that allowed the Chippewa to hunt, fish, and gathe......
  • Minn. R., Part 6232.1600 [Effective Until 1/31/2024] Special Hunt Procedures
    • United States
    • Minnesota Administrative Rules 2023 Edition Agency 158. Natural Resources Department Chapter 6232. Big Game Taking Deer By Firearms
    • January 1, 2023
    ...tribal declarations for antlerless deer harvest in the 1837 Ceded Territory in compliance with Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa v. Minnesota, 119 S. Ct. 1187 (1999).Subp. 7. Nontoxic ammunition required. A. Individuals may only nontoxic ammunition on their person while taking wild animals, as de......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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