## Facts

- The Medicine Lodge Treaty of 1867 created a reservation for the Kiowa and Comanche, with the Apache later associated by separate agreement.
- Article 12 of the treaty stated that no further cession of commonly held reservation land would be valid unless signed by at least three-fourths of the adult male tribal members occupying the reservation.
- In 1892, federal negotiators (the Jerome Commission) reached an agreement providing for allotment of tribal lands and opening roughly two million acres of “surplus” lands to non-Indian settlement.
- Tribal members asserted the agreement lacked the treaty-required three-fourths signatures and was procured through fraud and misrepresentation.
- Congress enacted the Act of June 6, 1900, implementing allotment and opening the surplus lands.
- Lone Wolf, a Kiowa leader, sued federal officials in equity to enjoin enforcement of the 1900 statute, alleging violation of the treaty and the Fifth Amendment (due process and taking without compensation).
- The trial court dismissed the bill, and the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether Congress may unilaterally override a treaty provision requiring specified tribal consent to a land cession and dispose of reservation lands by statute.
2. Whether such legislation violates the Fifth Amendment by taking tribal property without due process or just compensation.
3. Whether courts may review alleged fraud, lack of required signatures, or unfairness in the process leading to congressional action affecting tribal lands.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal and upheld the Act of June 6, 1900.
- The Court held that Congress has plenary authority over tribal relations and tribal property, including power to modify or abrogate Indian treaty provisions.
- The Court treated the exercise of this authority as political in nature and generally not subject to judicial control.
- The Court refused to inquire into alleged fraud or the sufficiency of tribal consent, presuming Congress acted in good faith.
- The Court rejected the Fifth Amendment challenge, treating the statute’s disposition of tribal lands as within Congress’s conclusive authority in Indian affairs.

## Legal Principles

- Congress possesses plenary power over Indian affairs and tribal property, and this power includes authority to alter or abrogate treaty constraints by subsequent legislation.
- Treaty provisions conditioning land cessions on specified tribal consent do not materially limit Congress’s controlling authority to act for the tribe’s care and protection as Congress determines.
- Congressional determinations concerning the fairness, consent, or circumstances surrounding agreements affecting tribal lands are treated as political judgments, generally conclusive on the courts.
- When Congress legislates to dispose of tribal lands and provides for consideration or arrangements it deems adequate, courts will not treat the action as an ordinary judicially cognizable Fifth Amendment taking, and will presume legislative good faith.

## Conclusion

The Court sustained a federal statute that opened reservation lands to non-Indian settlement despite treaty language requiring supermajority tribal consent, holding that Congress’s plenary, political authority over Indian affairs allows unilateral treaty modification and forecloses searching judicial review, including Fifth Amendment objections framed as takings or due process violations.


Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903)