White Earth Band of Chippewa Indians v. Alexander
| Decision Date | 14 May 1982 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 81-1805,81-1833,81-1861 and 81-1862,s. 81-1805 |
| Citation | 683 F.2d 1129 |
| Parties | WHITE EARTH BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, Appellee, v. Joseph N. ALEXANDER, individually and as Commissioner of Natural Resources for the State of Minnesota and Fredean C. Hammer, Director of the Division of Enforcement and Field Service for the Department of Natural Resources, Counties of Mahnomen, Clearwater and Becker, Elmer H. Winter, Kenneth Albertson, Joe Klinkhammer, Ed Grahame, Appellants. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. STATE OF MINNESOTA, Appellee/Cross Appellant. WHITE EARTH BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, Appellee, v. Joseph N. ALEXANDER, individually and as Commissioner of Natural Resources for the State of Minnesota and Fredean C. Hammer, Director of the Division of Enforcement and Field Service for the Department of Natural Resources, Counties of Mahnomen, Clearwater and Becker, Elmer W. Winter, Kenneth Albertson, Joe Klinkhammer, Ed Grahame, Appellants. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. STATE OF MINNESOTA, Appellant. WHITE EARTH BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, Appellant, v. Joseph N. ALEXANDER, individually and as Commissioner of Natural Resources for the State of Minnesota and Fredean C. Hammer, Director of the Division of Enforcement and Field Service for the Department of Natural Resources, Counties of Mahnomen, Clearwater and Becker, Elmer W. Winter, Kenneth Albertson, Joe Klinkhammer, Ed Grahame, Appellees. UNITED STATES of America, v. STATE OF MINNESOTA, Appellee. WHITE EARTH BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, Appellee, v. Joseph N. ALEXANDER, individually and as Commissioner of Natural Resources for the State of Minnesota and Fredean C. Hammer, Director of the Division of Enforcement and Field Service for the Department of Natural Resources, Counties of Mahnomen, Clearwater and Becker, Elmer W. Winter, Kenneth Albertson, Joe Klinkhammer, Ed Grahame, Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Carol E. Dinkins, Asst. Atty. Gen., James M. Rosenbaum, U. S. Atty., Francis X. Hermann, Asst. U. S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., Edward J. Shawaker, Kay L. Richman, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for United States; John Jacobson, Atty., U. S. Dept. of the Interior, St. Paul, Minn., of counsel.
Tupper, Smith & Mattson, by Kent P. Tupper, Walker, Minn., for White Earth Band of Chippewa Indians; Bernard P. Becker, St. Paul, Minn., of counsel.
Before HENLEY, Circuit Judge, GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.
This case presents appeals and cross-appeals from the district court's 1 granting of motions for issue preclusion and determination of the litigation on the merits. For partial reversal, the White Earth Band of Chippewa Indians argues that the district court erred in (1) ruling that four townships 2 had not been restored to the White Earth Reservation and (2) determining that the State of Minnesota could require "non-members" 3 hunting and fishing on Indian Lands with tribal permission to follow state limits and regulations. The state appellees, intervening counties and individual intervenors cross-appeal from the district court's order which precluded litigation of the disestablishment issue decided in State v. Clark, 282 N.W.2d 902 (Minn.1979) (Clark ), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 904, 100 S.Ct. 1080, 63 L.Ed.2d 320 (1980). They argue that collateral estoppel is inapplicable because (1) there has been a significant change in the law and (2) the purposes of collateral estoppel are not met. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
The facts underlying this appeal are not disputed. The district court thoroughly discussed the background of litigation, White Earth Band of Chippewa Indians v. Alexander, 518 F.Supp. 527 (D.Minn.1981); therefore, only facts pertinent to this appeal will be reproduced here.
The White Earth Band is one of six Chippewa Bands comprising the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. The White Earth Reservation was established by the treaty of March 19, 1867, and consisted of thirty-six townships. 16 Stat. 719, II Kappler 974 (ratified April 8, 1867). In 1889, Congress enacted the Nelson Act, 25 Stat. 642, I Kappler 301, one of a series of particularized allotment acts adopted after passage of the Dawes Act or General Allotment Act of 1887, 24 Stat. 388, I Kappler 33. On July 20, 1889, pursuant to the Nelson Act, the Band ceded their right and title to four northeastern townships. See note 2 supra. Following the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 987, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 476, approximately 2,900 acres of the 92,000 acres of the four ceded townships were restored to trust status.
In 1974, the Band filed a complaint in federal district court against the State of Minnesota and certain state officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief after numerous arrests of Band members for fishing and hunting violations within the White Earth Reservation. Three Minnesota counties, Becker, Clearwater and Mahnomen (counties) and four individuals were allowed to intervene. The Band sought a declaration that (1) its members and Minnesota Chippewa Tribe members were entitled to hunt, fish, trap and gather wild rice without any interference, regulation, control or licensing by officials of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and (2) the Band and Tribe had jurisdiction to regulate those activities by non-members within their Reservation. The district court consolidated the action with a suit filed by the United States against the State of Minnesota seeking to prohibit the state from enforcing its hunting, fishing, trapping and wild rice gathering laws (hereinafter gaming laws) against Band members on the Reservation.
The Band's action was held in abeyance by agreement of the parties and with court approval while several issues were litigated in state court regarding prosecutions of Band members for gaming laws violations on the Reservation. These prosecutions were consolidated on appeal before the Minnesota Supreme Court in Clark, 282 N.W.2d 902. The issue in Clark was whether the state had jurisdiction to enforce its gaming laws against Band members on non-Indian owned land within the thirty-two non-ceded townships within the Reservation. The court held (1) the Nelson Act did not disestablish the Reservation and therefore the state's jurisdiction was limited by 18 U.S.C. § 1162(b), Clark, 282 N.W.2d at 908; (2) the Indians have original rights to hunt and fish that were extinguished by the Treaty of February 22, 1855, 10 Stat. 1165, II Kappler 685, but were reacquired in the Treaty of 1867 and never thereafter extinguished, 282 N.W.2d at 908; and (3) the state lacks jurisdiction over Band members' hunting and fishing on the thirty-two townships within the Reservation, id. at 909.
Following the state court's decision in Clark, the district court granted the Band's motion to preclude further litigation of the disestablishment issue as it affected the thirty-two townships and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the state from enforcing its gaming laws against Band members within the thirty-two townships. The state appellees, intervening counties, and individual intervenors 4 (hereinafter counties) challenge the preclusion order, arguing that a significant legal change renders collateral estoppel inapplicable and the purposes of collateral estoppel have not been met.
The district court also made the following findings: (1) the original thirty-six township Reservation has been diminished by cession of the four northeastern townships, White Earth Band v. Minnesota, 518 F.Supp. at 534, citing United States v. Minnesota, 466 F.Supp. 1382 (D.Minn.1979), aff'd sub nom. Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. Minnesota, 614 F.2d 1161 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 905, 101 S.Ct. 279, 66 L.Ed.2d 136 (1980); (2) the Band may prohibit or condition entry onto Indian-owned or trust land within the Reservation by issuing permits or charging permit fees, but may not proceed against non-members in tribal courts, White Earth Band v. Minnesota, 518 F.Supp. at 535; and (3) the state could enforce its gaming laws against non-members on Indian-owned and trust lands, id. at 538. On appeal the Band challenges the first and third findings. The Band argues that the district court erred in holding that the four northeastern townships are not part of the Reservation because (1) authority to restore the four townships to reservation status is contained in the Indian Reorganization Act; (2) this case is distinguishable from United States v. Minnesota, 466 F.Supp. 1382; and (3) "checkerboard jurisdiction" is impractical and contrary to Congress' intent. The Band also argues that the district court erred in determining the state's authority to require licenses of non-members hunting on Indian land because the issue is not ripe for consideration.
The collateral estoppel doctrine "has the dual purpose of protecting litigants from the burden of relitigating an identical issue with the same party or his privy and of promoting judicial economy by preventing needless litigation." Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326, 99 S.Ct. 645, 649, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979), citing Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U.S. 313, 328-329, 91 S.Ct. 1434, 1442-1443, 28 L.Ed.2d 788 (1971).
In the present case the parties agree that the technical requirements of collateral estoppel are satisfied pursuant to the four-part analysis of Oldham v. Pritchett, 599 F.2d 274 (8th Cir. 1979). According to the Oldham court, collateral estoppel is appropriate where:
(1) the issue ... (is) ... identical to one in a prior adjudication; (2) there was a final judgment on the merits; (3) the estopped party was a party or in privy with a party to the prior adjudication; and (4) the estopped party was given a full and fair opportunity to be heard on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah
...diminished by cession of four-township tract; remaining thirty-two township reservation area not disestablished), affirmed, 683 F.2d 1129 (8th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1070, 103 S.Ct. 488, 74 L.Ed.2d 631 Hagen also contrasts with Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. v. Yazzie, 909 F......
-
Heartland Academy Community Church v. Waddle
...has "broad discretion" in deciding whether to apply the offensive collateral estoppel doctrine. See White Earth Band of Chippewa Indians v. Alexander, 683 F.2d 1129, 1134 (8th Cir. 1982) (citing Parklane Hosiery Co., 439 U.S. at 331, 99 S.Ct. 645). Because we do not disturb the district cou......
-
Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe v. Cnty. of Mille Lacs, Case No. 17-cv-05155 (SRN/LIB)
...Red Lake Band ]; White Earth Band of Chippewa Indians v. Alexander , 518 F. Supp. 527 (D. Minn. 1981), aff'd , 683 F.2d 1129 (8th Cir. 1982) [hereinafter White Earth Band ]. In Red Lake Band , the Court reasoned that the language of the band's written agreement to the Nelson Act—that the ba......
-
Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation v. State of Utah, 96-4073
...adjudication becomes desirable insofar as it fosters reliance on judicial decision making." White Earth Band of Chippewa Indians v. Alexander, 683 F.2d 1129, 1135 (8th Cir.1982). The Tribe argues that this reasoning, as well as the other important purposes of finality, support enforcement o......