Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation v. State of Utah, 96-4073
Decision Date | 08 May 1997 |
Docket Number | No. 96-4073,96-4073 |
Citation | 114 F.3d 1513 |
Parties | 97 CJ C.A.R. 692 UTE INDIAN TRIBE OF THE UINTAH AND OURAY RESERVATION, Plaintiff--Appellee, v. STATE OF UTAH; Duchesne County, a political subdivision of the State of Utah; Roosevelt City, a municipal corporation; Duchesne City, a municipal corporation; Uintah County, a political subdivision of the State of Utah, Defendants--Appellants, and United States of America, Amicus Curiae. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
John W. Andrews, Assistant Attorney General (Jan Graham, Attorney General, Carol Clawson, Solicitor General, Reed Richards, Chief Deputy Attorney General, and Michael M. Quealy, Assistant Attorney General, with him on the brief), Office of the Attorney General for the State of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant-Appellant State of Utah.
JoAnn B. Stringham, Uintah County Attorney, Vernal, UT, on the briefs, for Defendant-Appellant Uintah County.
Herbert W. Gillespie, Duchesne County Attorney, Roosevelt, UT, on the briefs, for Defendant-Appellant Duchesne County.
Robert S. Thompson, III, General Counsel, Ute Indian Tribe, Fort Duchesne, UT (Sandra Hansen, Deputy General Counsel, Ute Indian Tribe, Fort Duchesne, UT, and Tod J. Smith, Whiteing & Smith, Boulder, CO, with him on the brief), for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert L. Klarquist, U.S. Attorney (Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General, Edward J. Shawaker, U.S. Attorney, and Curtis G. Berkey, U.S. Attorney, with him on the brief), Department of Justice, Washington, DC, appearing for amicus curiae United States of America.
Before TACHA, GODBOLD, * and HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judges.
This appeal requires us to address once again the status of the Uintah Valley Indian Reservation. In the district court, the Ute Indian Tribe ("Tribe") sought to obtain a permanent injunction preventing the State of Utah, the counties of Duchesne and Uintah, and the cities of Roosevelt and Duchesne ("state and local defendants") from exercising civil and criminal jurisdiction on certain lands within the original exterior boundary of the Uintah Valley Reservation in a manner inconsistent with our en banc opinion in Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah, 773 F.2d 1087 (10th Cir.1985) (en banc), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 994, 107 S.Ct. 596, 93 L.Ed.2d 596 (1986). In opposing the injunction, the state and local defendants rely on Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399, 114 S.Ct. 958, 127 L.Ed.2d 252 (1994), in which the Supreme Court held, contrary to our decision in Ute Indian Tribe, that the lands in question are not part of the Uintah Valley Reservation. Notwithstanding Hagen, the district court held that it was bound under the "law of the case" doctrine to follow our mandate in Ute Indian Tribe and thus, that it was without authority to alter the existing jurisdictional boundaries as set forth in Ute Indian Tribe. In light of the inconsistency between Ute Indian Tribe and Hagen, however, the district court requested that we issue instructions on how to proceed and suggested that we construe the request as an invitation to recall our mandate in Ute Indian Tribe.
The state and local defendants appeal, arguing that (1) our en banc decision in Ute Indian Tribe does not preclude their exercise of jurisdiction over former reservation lands under the doctrines of law of the case, collateral estoppel, or res judicata and (2) Hagen effectively overruled Ute Indian Tribe, permitting the defendants to exercise jurisdiction over all the lands originally held to be within reservation boundaries. Along with their appeal, the state and local defendants have filed a motion to recall, in its entirety, our mandate issued pursuant to Ute Indian Tribe. The United States as amicus curiae urges us to recall and modify the mandate in Ute Indian Tribe only to the extent that it directly conflicts with Hagen. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because we conclude that the boundaries of the Uintah Valley Reservation must be redetermined in light of Hagen, we modify our holding in Ute Indian Tribe to the extent that it directly conflicts with the holding in Hagen.
This case is unlike other reservation diminishment cases in which courts must decide whether congressional enactments opening reservation lands to non-Indian settlement have diminished or disestablished reservation boundaries. See, e.g., Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463, 104 S.Ct. 1161, 79 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984); Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, 430 U.S. 584, 97 S.Ct. 1361, 51 L.Ed.2d 660 (1977); DeCoteau v. District County Court, 420 U.S. 425, 95 S.Ct. 1082, 43 L.Ed.2d 300 (1975); Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481, 93 S.Ct. 2245, 37 L.Ed.2d 92 (1973); Seymour v. Superintendent of Wash. State Penitentiary, 368 U.S. 351, 82 S.Ct. 424, 7 L.Ed.2d 346 (1962); United States v. Celestine, 215 U.S. 278, 30 S.Ct. 93, 54 L.Ed. 195 (1909). Over a decade ago, we answered that question when we addressed whether congressional enactments from 1902 through 1905 had the effect of diminishing the Uintah Valley Reservation. Ute Indian Tribe, 773 F.2d at 1093. Sitting en banc in 1985, we held that the Reservation had not been diminished. Id. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on December 1, 1986. Utah v. Ute Indian Tribe, 479 U.S. 994, 107 S.Ct. 596, 93 L.Ed.2d 596 (1986).
The State of Utah sought to relitigate the boundary issue in three criminal actions commenced in the Utah state courts. In these cases, the Utah Supreme Court concluded that the 1902-1905 allotment legislation had diminished the Uintah Valley Reservation. State v. Hagen, 858 P.2d 925 (Utah 1992); State v. Coando, 858 P.2d 926 (Utah 1992); State v. Perank, 858 P.2d 927 (Utah 1992).
In 1994, the Supreme Court granted certiorari "to resolve the direct conflict between these decisions of the Tenth Circuit and the Utah Supreme Court on the question whether the Uintah Reservation has been diminished." Hagen, 510 U.S. at 409, 114 S.Ct. at 964. The Supreme Court expressly disagreed with our decision in Ute Indian Tribe and held that the Uintah Valley Reservation had been diminished. Id. at 421-22, 114 S.Ct. at 970-71. In this appeal, we decide whether to modify our judgment in Ute Indian Tribe, after the time for rehearing has passed, in light of its conflict with a later, contrary decision of the Supreme Court.
In 1975, the Tribe sought to exercise jurisdiction over all of the land originally encompassed in the Uintah Valley Reservation pursuant to the Tribe's newly enacted Law and Order Code. When non-Indians living in and around several towns within the original boundaries protested the action, the Tribe sought declaratory and injunctive relief in federal court to establish the exterior boundaries of the Uintah Valley Reservation and to restrain the state and local defendants from interfering with enforcement of the Law and Order Code within those boundaries. The Tribe argued that the original boundaries of the Uintah Valley Reservation, established by executive order in 1861 and confirmed by Congress in 1864, continued to exist undiminished. The Tribe thus argued that it had jurisdiction over all of the lands encompassed within the original boundaries of the Reservation because such lands were "Indian country" as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1151.
On the other hand, the state and local defendants argued that congressional enactments from 1902 through 1905, opening Reservation lands to non-Indian settlement and setting aside lands for a national forest reserve, had the effect of diminishing the Uintah Valley Reservation. The defendants also argued that congressional enactments from 1894 to 1897 had the effect of completely disestablishing the Tribe's Uncompahgre Reservation.
In addressing the parties arguments, the district court gave a comprehensive summary of the relevant legislation, legislative history, contemporaneous interpretations by the executive branch, and other circumstances surrounding the enactment of the legislation. We therefore only briefly summarize the legislative treatment of the lands below.
In 1902, Congress passed legislation directing the Secretary of the Interior to make individual allotments out of the Uintah Valley Reservation by October 1, 1903, provided that a majority of the adult male members of the Ute Indians consented. Act of May 27, 1902, ch. 888, 32 Stat. 263, 263-64 ("1902 Act"). The 1902 Act stated that after October 1, 1903, "all the unallotted lands within said reservation shall be restored to the public domain " and subject to entry by non-Indians under the homestead laws. Id. (emphasis added). Congress delayed the allotment process, however, and extended the opening date in 1903 and again in 1904. Act of Mar. 3, 1903, ch. 994, 32 Stat. 982, 997-98; Act of Apr. 21, 1904, ch. 1402, 33 Stat. 189, 207-08. In 1905, Congress extended the opening date a third time--to September 1, 1905--and directed the Secretary to allot the Reservation unilaterally if the Tribe's consent was not obtained. Act of Mar. 3, 1905, ch. 1479, 33 Stat. 1048, 1069-70 ("1905 Act"). The 1905 Act did not contain the same language restoring the unallotted and unreserved lands to the "public domain," but provided that such lands "shall be disposed of under the general provisions of the homestead and townsite laws of the United States." Id. (emphasis added).
In addition to extending the time of entry under the 1902 Act and describing the entry process, the 1905 Act authorized the President to "set apart and reserve" lands in the Reservation as a forest reserve prior to opening. 33 Stat. 1070. Pursuant to this power, on July 14, 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt issued a proclamation designating some 1,010,000 acres within the Uintah Valley Reservation as an addition to the Uintah National...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
UTE Indian Tribe of the Uintah v. Lawrence
...the holding of the case. They more correctly state the holding of these related cases by quoting Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah , 114 F.3d 1513, 1530 (10th Cir. 1997) (" Ute V "):the Tribe and the federal government retain jurisdiction over all trust lands, the National Forest Lands, the Uncompah......
-
Forest Guardians v. Babbitt
...governing our review should be abuse of discretion. The Secretary takes this standard from Ute Indian Tribe of Uintah & Ouray Reservation v. Utah, 114 F.3d 1513, 1520 (10th Cir.1997), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 1034, 140 L.Ed.2d 101 (1998). However, Ute Indian Tribe did not invo......
-
Forest Guardians v. Babbitt, 97-2370
...governing our review should be abuse of discretion. The Secretary takes this standard from Ute Indian Tribe of Uintah & Ouray Reservation v. Utah, 114 F.3d 1513, 1520 (10th Cir.1997), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 1034, 140 L.Ed.2d 101 (1998). However, Ute Indian Tribe did not invo......
-
State ex rel. Balderas v. Real Estate Law Ctr., P.C.
...v. Morris, No. 07-0079, 2009 WL 5201799, at *15 (D.N.M. October 23, 2009) (Browning, J.)(quoting Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation v. Utah, 114 F.3d 1513, 1522 (10th Cir. 1997) )."A district court may find irreparable harm ‘based upon evidence suggesting that it is impossib......
-
CHAPTER 15 OVERVIEW OF COMPLICATING FACTORS AFFECTING TITLE
...[164] See Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah, 773 F.2d 1087 (10th Cir. 1985), Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (1994) and Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah, 114 F.3d 1513 (10th Cir. 1997), for cases dealing with the effect of allotment legislation and the withdrawal of lands for the Uintah National Forest on the U......
-
CHAPTER 12 The Clean Air Act “Treatment As States” Rule
...jurisdiction over the lands that had been opened to settlement during the 1902 through 1905 period. In Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah, 114 F.3d 1513 (10th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1034 (1998), the Tenth Circuit ruled that it would not modify its 1986 judgment to the extent that it dec......
-
AN INDUSTRY LAWYER'S PERSPECTIVE ON TRIBAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT'S “TREATMENT AS STATES” PROVISION
...jurisdiction over the lands that had been opened to settlement during the 1902 through 1905 period. In Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah, 114 F.3d 1513 (10th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1034 (1998), the Tenth Circuit ruled that it would not modify its 1986 judgment to the extent that it dec......
-
CHAPTER 3 REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT: TRIBAL EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ORDINANCES AND THE NLRB
...977, 982 (9th Cir. 2014). [55] 25 U.S.C. § 5307(c). [56] UTERO Ordinance, Ord. No. 13-033 (Oct. 3, 2013); see Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah, 114 F.3d 1513 (10th Cir. 1997); Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah, 790 F.3d 1000 (10th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S.Ct. 1451 (2016). [57] TERO Ordinance and TERO......
-
Chapter 382, HB 63 – Recodification of Title 63 State Affairs in General
...as being included within the Uintah and Ouray Reservation in: (i) Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (1994); and (ii) Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah, 114 F.3d 1513 (10th Cir. 1997). (bb) (i) "Utah small business corporation" means a corporation that: (A) is a small business corporation as defined in Sec......
-
Chapter 367, HB 30 – Tax Modifications
...as being included within the Uintah and Ouray Reservation in: (i) Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (1994); and (ii) Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah, 114 F.3d 1513 (10th Cir. [(bb)] (dd) "Unadjusted income" means an amount equal to the difference between: (i) the total income required to be reported by ......
-
Chapter 44, HB 67 – Title 71a - Veterans and Military Affairs
...as being included within the Uintah and Ouray Reservation in: (i) Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (1994); and (ii) Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah, 114 F.3d 1513 (10th Cir. (dd) "Unadjusted income" means an amount equal to the difference between: (i) the total income required to be reported by a resid......
-
Chapter 389, HB 359 – Tax Changes
...as being included within the Uintah and Ouray Reservation in: (i) Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (1994); and (ii) Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah, 114 F.3d 1513 (10th Cir. [ (bb) (i) "Utah small business corporation" means a corporation that:] [ (A) is a small business corporation as defined in Secti......