## Facts

- The Delaware Indians became geographically dispersed through 19th-century westward removals.
- By the late 19th century, three relevant groups existed:
  - Cherokee Delawares, later federally recognized and associated with the Cherokee in Oklahoma.
  - Absentee Delawares, later federally recognized in Oklahoma.
  - Kansas Delawares, who remained in Kansas when others moved to Oklahoma.
- Under an 1866 treaty, the Kansas Delawares elected U.S. citizenship, received individual land allotments, agreed to dissolve their tribal relationship, and were entitled only to a “just proportion” of tribal credits then held in trust by the United States.
- The Indian Claims Commission awarded funds for a U.S. breach of an 1854 treaty with the Delaware Tribe.
- Congress enacted a distribution statute allocating the award only to the Cherokee and Absentee Delaware tribes, excluding the Kansas Delawares.
- Kansas Delawares sued federal officials and the two tribes, alleging their exclusion violated equal protection as incorporated through the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, and sought to enjoin distribution.
- The district court enjoined distribution under the statute; the judgment was affirmed on appeal.
- The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and consolidated the appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether an equal protection challenge to a federal Indian distribution statute is justiciable despite Congress’s plenary power over Indian affairs.
2. Whether excluding Kansas Delawares from distribution of the award funds violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause’s equal protection component.

## Decision

- The Court held the constitutional challenge was justiciable; Congress’s Indian-affairs power is broad but not immune from constitutional limits.
- Applying a deferential standard for federal Indian classifications, the Court upheld the statute.
- Congress could rationally limit distribution to the two federally recognized Delaware tribes as the continuing tribal entities associated with the claim.
- Congress could also rationally treat the Kansas Delawares’ 1866 election to dissolve tribal relations and accept then-existing trust credits as a basis to exclude them from later tribal-claim distributions.
- The Court reversed the injunction and upheld the distribution statute.

## Legal Principles

- Federal legislation in Indian affairs remains subject to Fifth Amendment review; plenary power is not absolute.
- Classifications in federal Indian legislation are reviewed deferentially and sustained if the differential treatment is rationally tied to Congress’s unique obligations toward Indians.
- Congress may distinguish between federally recognized tribal entities and descendants of groups that previously elected to sever tribal relations, so long as the line drawn is not arbitrary under the governing deferential standard.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Congress’s allocation of Indian Claims Commission award funds to two federally recognized Delaware tribes and found no Fifth Amendment violation in excluding Kansas Delawares, because the statutory line-drawing was rationally related to Congress’s responsibilities in Indian affairs.


Delaware Tribal Bus. Comm. v. Weeks, 430 U.S. 73 (1977)