## Facts

- The Menominee Reservation in Wisconsin was confirmed by the Treaty of Wolf River (1854), setting aside land “for a home, to be held as Indian lands are held.”
- Congress enacted the Menominee Indian Termination Act of 1954, ending federal supervision over the Tribe and generally making state law applicable as to other citizens.
- Congress also enacted Public Law 280, extending state jurisdiction in “Indian country,” while expressly providing that nothing in the law would deprive any tribe of treaty rights regarding hunting, trapping, or fishing, or related regulation.
- Beginning in 1962, Wisconsin asserted that state hunting and fishing laws applied to Menominee tribal members and prosecuted members for violations.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the Termination Act abrogated any treaty-based hunting and fishing rights, making state regulations enforceable.
- The Tribe sued the United States in the U.S. Court of Claims seeking compensation for the alleged loss of treaty hunting and fishing rights.
- The Court of Claims held the Tribe had treaty-based hunting and fishing rights and that the Termination Act did not abrogate them.
- The Supreme Court granted review to resolve the conflict between the state court and the Court of Claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the Wolf River Treaty’s reservation language (“to be held as Indian lands are held”) includes treaty-based hunting and fishing rights.
2. Whether the Menominee Indian Termination Act of 1954 abrogated those treaty rights, considering Public Law 280’s proviso preserving treaty hunting and fishing rights.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Claims.
- The Court held the Treaty of Wolf River’s reservation language included the right to hunt and fish.
- The Court held the Termination Act did not terminate the Tribe’s treaty hunting and fishing rights.
- Reading Public Law 280 and the Termination Act together, the Court concluded Congress did not clearly express an intent to extinguish the treaty rights.
- The Court did not define the precise scope of the hunting and fishing rights, deciding only that they were not extinguished.

## Legal Principles

- Treaty language may be interpreted in context to preserve a tribe’s continued way of life on reservation lands, including hunting and fishing, even if not expressly stated.
- Statutes addressing related subject matter affecting tribes may be construed together (in pari materia) when assessing the continued validity of treaty rights.
- Abrogation of Indian treaty rights is not presumed; Congress must clearly and unequivocally express an intent to extinguish treaty-protected rights.
- General termination or jurisdictional statutes do not, without a clear statement, eliminate specific treaty rights concerning hunting and fishing or immunity from state regulation.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the Menominee Tribe retained treaty-based hunting and fishing rights under the Treaty of Wolf River and that those rights were not abrogated by the Menominee Indian Termination Act absent a clear congressional statement to extinguish them.


Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 391 U.S. 404 (1968)