## Facts

- The United States sued in its own right and as guardian for the Walapai (Hualapai) Tribe to protect the tribe’s claimed right of occupancy over lands in northwestern Arizona.
- The Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company, successor to the Atlantic & Pacific Railroad Company, asserted full title under a federal railroad land grant enacted in 1866.
- The 1866 statute granted lands for the railroad but directed that Indian title within the grant be extinguished only by the United States, by voluntary cession, consistent with public policy and the Indians’ welfare.
- The United States alleged the Hualapai’s ancestral, exclusive occupancy created “Indian title” that had not been lawfully extinguished before the railroad’s interest became fixed, and that the railroad therefore held title subject to the tribe’s occupancy.
- The complaint sought to enjoin interference with tribal occupancy, quiet title recognizing the occupancy right, and obtain an accounting for rents and profits from use of the lands.
- The district court dismissed for failure to state a valid equitable claim, and the court of appeals affirmed.
- The Supreme Court granted review due to the importance of the issues concerning Indian law administration and railroad land grants.

## Issues

1. What facts establish aboriginal (Indian) title by occupancy, and must such title rest on a treaty, statute, or other formal governmental recognition?
2. Whether various governmental acts and events—including the Mexican cession framework, land-claims statutes, creation of reservations, the 1866 railroad grant, and a forcible removal—extinguished Hualapai aboriginal title.
3. Whether a railroad grantee under the 1866 Act took title subject to unextinguished Indian occupancy, and how the timing of the railroad’s definite location affected that result.
4. Whether and to what extent courts may review Congress’s extinguishment of aboriginal title.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The Court held that aboriginal title is established by proof, as a matter of fact, that lands constituted definable territory occupied exclusively as the ancestral home of a tribe, rather than land merely traveled over by multiple tribes.
- The Court held a tribal claim to particular lands need not be based on treaty, statute, or other formal governmental action.
- The Court reaffirmed that Congress has supreme power to extinguish aboriginal title and that the exercise of that power is not subject to judicial inquiry; however, extinguishment by legislation is not presumed without clear congressional intent.
- The Court held the 1866 railroad grant conveyed title subject to any existing Indian right of occupancy until extinguished by the United States through voluntary cession as contemplated by the statute.
- The Court concluded the alleged events and enactments cited did not extinguish Hualapai aboriginal title, except that the executive-order reservation created in the early 1880s at the tribe’s request extinguished aboriginal title outside the reservation boundaries.

## Legal Principles

- Aboriginal (Indian) title can arise from exclusive tribal occupancy of definable territory as a factual matter; it is not dependent on formal governmental recognition.
- The federal government treats Indian occupancy as protected against interference and terminable only by the United States.
- Congress’s power to extinguish aboriginal title is plenary and nonjusticiable as to its wisdom, but courts require clear evidence of congressional intent before finding extinguishment by legislation.
- Federal grants of land, including railroad grants, are construed to remain burdened by unextinguished Indian occupancy when the governing statute contemplates later extinguishment by the United States.
- Establishing a reservation as a permanent home for a tribe, particularly at the tribe’s request, may effect extinguishment of aboriginal title to lands outside the reservation.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the United States stated a viable claim that the Hualapai possessed aboriginal title by occupancy and that the railroad’s grant was subject to that occupancy unless clearly and lawfully extinguished; it reversed dismissal and remanded for factual determinations on the existence, extent, and timing of any extinguishment, while recognizing that the later executive-order reservation ended aboriginal claims outside its boundaries.


United States v. Santa Fe Pac. R.R. Co., 314 U.S. 339 (1941)