Facts
- In 1837, the Chippewa ceded land in present-day Minnesota and Wisconsin while reserving hunting, fishing, and wild rice gathering in the ceded territory “during the pleasure of the President.”
- In 1850, President Taylor issued an executive order directing Chippewa removal from the ceded territory and purporting to revoke the reserved usufructuary rights.
- The United States later abandoned removal; in 1855, a treaty created reservation lands for the Mille Lacs Band but did not address the 1837 usufructuary rights.
- Minnesota became a state in 1858 and later asserted broad authority to regulate hunting and fishing within the former ceded territory without regard to the 1837 treaty reservation.
- In 1990, the Mille Lacs Band and members sued Minnesota seeking a declaration that the 1837 usufructuary rights remained in force and an injunction against state interference.
- The district court held the Chippewa retained the 1837 usufructuary rights; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether later federal actions or Minnesota’s statehood terminated the 1837 treaty rights.
Issues
- Whether the 1850 executive order validly terminated the usufructuary rights reserved in the 1837 Treaty.
- Whether the 1855 Treaty extinguished the 1837 usufructuary rights.
- Whether the equal footing doctrine and Minnesota’s admission to the Union in 1858 ended the 1837 treaty rights.
Decision
- The Court affirmed the Eighth Circuit in a 5–4 decision authored by Justice O’Connor.
- The Court held the Chippewa retained the usufructuary rights reserved in the 1837 Treaty.
- The 1850 executive order was ineffective because no statutory or constitutional authority supported it and it could not terminate treaty rights.
- The 1855 Treaty did not abrogate the 1837 rights because it contained no clear language relinquishing or terminating those rights.
- Minnesota’s statehood under the equal footing doctrine did not, by itself, extinguish federal treaty-reserved rights.
Legal Principles
- Presidential action that affects treaty rights must rest on constitutional or statutory authority; unauthorized executive action cannot terminate treaty-reserved rights.
- Abrogation of Indian treaty rights requires a clear expression of intent in the relevant treaty, statute, or other authorized federal action.
- Indian treaties are construed as the Indians would have understood them, and silence in a later treaty is generally insufficient to show relinquishment of reserved rights.
- State admission to the Union does not automatically override or extinguish federal treaty obligations or treaty-reserved rights.
Conclusion
The Court held that the Chippewa’s off-reservation hunting, fishing, and gathering rights reserved by the 1837 Treaty remained valid because neither the unauthorized 1850 executive order, nor the text of the 1855 Treaty, nor Minnesota’s statehood clearly terminated those rights.