## Facts

- John Bartlett, a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, was convicted in South Dakota state court of attempted rape for conduct occurring in an area once within the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation and later opened to non-Indian settlement under the 1908 Cheyenne River Act.
- Bartlett sought federal habeas relief, arguing the offense occurred in “Indian country,” making federal jurisdiction exclusive under 18 U.S.C. § 1153 and depriving South Dakota of authority to prosecute.
- The 1908 Act authorized the Secretary of the Interior “to sell and dispose of” certain reservation lands for homesteading and required that sale proceeds be deposited in the U.S. Treasury to the credit of tribal members.
- The federal district court granted the writ, concluding the Act opened lands for settlement but did not reduce reservation boundaries; the court of appeals affirmed.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the 1908 Act diminished the reservation and, in turn, whether the State had criminal jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1908 Cheyenne River Act diminished the boundaries of the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation so that the offense location lay outside “Indian country.”
2. If the reservation was not diminished, whether South Dakota lacked criminal jurisdiction over an enrolled tribal member for a covered offense committed there, given 18 U.S.C. § 1153.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed and held that the 1908 Cheyenne River Act did not diminish the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation.
- Because the reservation boundaries remained intact, the offense occurred in Indian country.
- South Dakota therefore lacked jurisdiction to prosecute Bartlett; federal habeas relief was proper.

## Legal Principles

- Only Congress may diminish a reservation; courts require a clear expression of congressional intent to change reservation boundaries.
- Surplus land or “opening” acts do not diminish reservation boundaries unless the statute and legislative history provide substantial and compelling evidence of intent to diminish.
- When text and legislative history do not clearly show intent to diminish, interpretive canons favor retaining existing reservation boundaries.
- Later demographic changes or post-enactment state and local jurisdictional practices cannot substitute for, or overcome the absence of, clear congressional intent to diminish.
- If a reservation is not diminished, crimes by an Indian in Indian country covered by 18 U.S.C. § 1153 fall within federal (not state) prosecutorial authority.

## Conclusion

The Court concluded that opening reservation land for non-Indian settlement under the 1908 Act did not, without a clear congressional statement, reduce the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation’s boundaries; as a result, the State lacked criminal jurisdiction over Bartlett for conduct committed in Indian country.


Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984)