## Facts

- An 1868 treaty set aside the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming for the Shoshone Tribe’s “absolute and undisturbed use and occupation” and promised to exclude unauthorized persons from the area.
- The reservation contained valuable timber and mineral deposits, including gold, oil, coal, and gypsum.
- In 1878, without the Tribe’s consent, the United States permanently settled a band of Arapahoe Indians on the reservation, effectively taking a portion for shared occupancy.
- Congress later authorized the Tribe to sue the United States in the Court of Claims for compensation for the taking associated with the Arapahoe settlement.
- On remand after an earlier Supreme Court decision correcting the date-of-taking analysis, the Court of Claims valued a one-half interest in the reservation as of March 19, 1878 and included the value of timber and minerals, finding the treaty conferred those rights on the Tribe.
- The United States sought review, arguing compensation should be limited to a surface “use and occupancy” interest and should exclude timber and mineral value.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1868 treaty’s grant of “absolute and undisturbed use and occupation” gave the Tribe rights to timber and subsurface minerals, or only a limited surface occupancy interest.
2. Whether just compensation for the government’s taking of part of the reservation had to include the value of timber and minerals.
3. Whether an appellate court may consult a lower court’s opinion to alter or narrow unambiguous formal findings of fact.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the Tribe.
- The Court held that the Tribe’s treaty rights in the reservation included timber and mineral resources.
- The Court held that the value of timber and minerals was properly included in calculating compensation for the land taken for the Arapahoe settlement.
- The Court held that unambiguous findings of the Court of Claims could not be modified by referring to the court’s opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Indian treaties are construed as the tribes would naturally understand them, rather than by narrow or technical readings.
- A treaty setting aside reservation lands for a tribe’s “absolute and undisturbed use and occupation,” coupled with a federal promise to exclude others, can confer beneficial ownership interests that include timber and mineral rights.
- Compensation for a governmental taking of tribal treaty-protected interests must reflect the full value of the interest taken, including the value of timber and minerals when those are part of the property right.
- On review of Court of Claims decisions, unambiguous formal findings control; a court may not use the lower court’s opinion to alter the scope of those findings.

## Conclusion

The Court concluded that the Shoshone Tribe’s treaty-based reservation rights included timber and mineral resources, so compensation for the government’s taking associated with settling the Arapahoes on the reservation had to include the value of those resources, and unambiguous Court of Claims findings could not be narrowed by consulting that court’s opinion.


United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians, 304 U.S. 111 (1938)