## Facts

- In 1875 and 1876, presidential executive orders withdrew approximately 5.5 million acres of public lands from sale and settlement and set them apart for Sioux use as additions to their treaty reservation.
- In 1879 and 1884, later executive orders revoked the earlier withdrawals and restored the lands to the public domain.
- The Sioux Tribe claimed the original executive orders created a vested property interest comparable to treaty-based reservations and that the later revocations constituted a compensable taking.
- The United States argued the President, without congressional authorization, could withdraw lands but could not convey a compensable proprietary interest in public lands to a tribe.
- The Sioux sued in the Court of Claims under a 1920 special jurisdictional statute authorizing presentation of claims despite time bars; the Court of Claims denied recovery.
- The Supreme Court granted review and considered whether any compensable tribal interest arose from the executive orders.

## Issues

1. Whether executive orders creating Indian reservations from public lands conferred a compensable property interest on the Sioux Tribe such that later revocation and restoration to the public domain required compensation.
2. Whether the President had express or implied authority, absent Congress, to create by executive order an Indian reservation that vested compensable rights in public lands.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Claims’ denial of compensation.
- The Court held the 1875–1876 executive orders conveyed no compensable property interest to the Sioux Tribe.
- The Court concluded that, without congressional authorization, the President could not create vested, compensable tribal rights in public lands by executive order.
- The Court treated the 1920 jurisdictional statute as a waiver of immunity and procedural permission to sue, not a grant of substantive property rights or an admission of liability.

## Legal Principles

- Congress has exclusive constitutional authority to dispose of public lands; executive power to convey interests in such lands must be traced to congressional delegation.
- Longstanding executive practice and congressional acquiescence may support presidential power to withdraw public lands from sale, but does not imply authority to create compensable property interests in those lands.
- Executive-order reservations, without clear congressional authorization, do not establish tribal ownership or compensable title comparable to treaty-based or congressionally created reservations.
- Inclusion of executive-order reservation lands within statutory allotment schemes does not, by itself, recognize pre-allotment tribal ownership.

## Conclusion

The Court held that executive-order withdrawals of public lands for Sioux use did not vest compensable property rights, and therefore the later executive revocations restoring the lands to the public domain did not require the United States to pay compensation.


Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States, 316 U.S. 317 (1942)