Menominee Tribe v. United States

Menominee Tribe v. United States - Wikipedia, the...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menominee_Tribe_v...
Menominee Tribe v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Menominee Tribe v. United States, 391

U.S. 404 (1968), is a case in which the
Supreme Court ruled that the Menominee
Indian Tribe kept their historical hunting
and shing rights even after the federal
government ceased to recognize the tribe.
It was a landmark decision in Native
American case law.
The Menominee Indian Tribe had entered
into a series of treaties with the United
States which did not specically state that
they had hunting and shing rights. In
1961, Congress terminated the tribe's
federal recognition, ending its right to
govern itself, federal support of health
care and education programs, police and
re protection, and tribal rights to land. In
1963, three members of the tribe were
charged with violating Wisconsin's
hunting and shing laws on land which
had been a reservation for over 100 years.
The tribe members were acquitted, but
when the state appealed, the Wisconsin
Supreme Court held that the Menominee
tribe no longer had hunting and shing
rights due to the termination action by
Congress.
The tribe sued the United States for
compensation in the U.S. Court of Claims,
which ruled that tribal members still had
hunting and shing rights and that
Congress had not abrogated those rights.
The opposite rulings by the state and
federal courts brought the issue to the
Supreme Court. In 1968, the Supreme
Court held that the tribe retained its
hunting and shing rights under the
treaties involved and the rights were not
lost after federal recognition was ended
1 of 13
Menominee Tribe v. United

States
Supreme Court of the United States

Argued January 22, 1968
Reargued April 26, 1968
Decided May 27, 1968
Full case Menominee Tribe of Indians
name
v. United States
Citations 391 U.S. 404
(https://supreme.justia.com
/us/391/404/case.html)
(more)
88 S.Ct. 1705, 20 L.Ed. 697
Prior
history
Menominee Tribe of Indians

et al. v. United States, 388
F.2d 998 (Ct. Cl. 1967).
Holding
Held that tribal hunting and shing

rights retained by treaty were not
abrogated by the Menominee
Termination Act without a clear and
unequivocal statement to that eect by
Congress
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black William O. Douglas
John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan, Jr.
Potter Stewart Byron White
Abe Fortas Thurgood Marshall
Case opinions
05/27/2015 10:32 AM
by the Menominee Indian Termination Act

without a clear and unequivocal statement
by Congress removing those rights.
Majority Douglas, joined by Brennan,

Fortas, Harlan, Warren,
White
Dissent
Contents
1 Background
1.1 Early treaties
1.2 Treaty of 1854
1.3 Tribal termination
1.4 State enforcement actions
1.5 Federal Court of Claims
2 Supreme Court
2.1 Argument
2.2 Reargument
2.3 Opinion of the court
2.4 Dissent
3 Subsequent developments
3.1 Law reviews and journals
3.2 Restoration of federal
recognition
4 Notes
5 References
6 External links
Stewart, joined by Black
Marshall took no part in the consideration or

decision of the case.
Laws applied
10 Stat. 1064 (http://legislink.org
/us/stat-10-1064) (1854), 25
U.S.C. 891
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode
/25/891.html)902
/25/902.html), 18 U.S.C. 1162
/18/1162.html)
Wikisource has
original text related
to this article:
Menominee Tribe
of Indians v.
United States
Background
Early treaties
Ancestors of the Menominee Indian Tribe may have lived in the states of
Wisconsin and Michigan for the last 10,000 years.[1][Note 1] Their traditional
territory was about 10 million acres (4 million hectares). They rst acknowledged
that they were under the protection of the United States in 1817 in the Treaty of
St. Louis.[2] In 1825 and 1827, the treaties of Prairie du Chien[3] and Butte des
Morts[4] answered boundary questions. None of the early treaties addressed
hunting and shing rights.[5] In 1831, the tribe entered into the Treaty of
Washington,[6] which ceded about 3,000,000 acres (1,200,000 ha) to the federal
government. These two treaties reserved hunting and shing rights for the tribe
on the ceded land until the President of the United States ordered the land
surveyed and sold to settlers. In 1836, the tribe entered into the Treaty of Cedar
2 of 13
05/27/2015 10:32 AM
Point,[7] under which 4,184,000 acres

(1,693,000 ha) were ceded to the federal
government. The treaty did not mention
hunting or shing rights.
In 1848, the
tribe entered
into another
treaty with the
United States,
the Treaty of
Lake
Poygan,[8]
The Crow Wing River area,
which ceded
showing part of the proposed
the tribe's
Menominee reservation (area
remaining
269)
approximately
4,000,000
acres (1,600,000 ha) in exchange for 600,000
acres (240,000 ha) west of the Mississippi River
in present-day Minnesota. This treaty was
Menominee Chief Oshkosh
contingent on the tribe examining the land
proposed for them and accepting it as suitable. In
1850, Chief Oshkosh led a delegation to the Crow
Wing area and determined that the land was not suitable for the tribe, mainly
because the proposed reservation was located between two warring tribes, the
Dakota[Note 2] and Ojibwe.[Note 3] Oshkosh then pressed for a new treaty, stating
that he "preferred a home somewhere in Wisconsin, for the poorest region in
Wisconsin was better than the Crow Wing."[9]
Treaty of 1854
The tribe had been living in an area near the Wolf River. They entered into the
Treaty of Wolf River with the United States in 1854.[10] The United States set
aside 276,480 acres (111,890 ha) of land for a reservation in present day
Menominee County, Wisconsin. In return, the tribe ceded the land in Minnesota
back to the federal government. None of the previous treaties except the Treaty
of Washington addressed the tribe's retained hunting and shing rights, [11] but
stated that the reservation was "to be held as Indian lands are held". [12]
Since the Treaty of Wolf River, this area has been the tribe's home, and they were
free from state taxation, regulation and court jurisdiction.[Note 4] Of the original
land, 230,000 acres (93,000 ha) of prime timberland remained under the tribe's
control, while the remaining land was transferred to the Mahican and Lenape (the
latter also known as the Delaware or Munsee) tribes.[Note 5] During this period,
3 of 13
05/27/2015 10:32 AM
the Menominee enjoyed complete freedom to regulate hunting and shing on the
reservation, with the acquiescence of Wisconsin.[13]
Tribal termination
In the mid- to late-1940s, the Menominee tribe was considered by a government
survey to identify tribes for termination, a process in which federal recognition of
the tribe would be withdrawn and the tribe would no longer be dependent on the
Bureau of Indian Aairs (BIA) to support them.[14] The Menominee were thought
to be a tribe that could be terminated because they were one of the richest tribes
in the nation.[15] The federal government thought that termination would allow
the tribal members to be assimilated into mainstream American culture,
becoming hard-working, tax-paying, productive citizens.[16] In 1954, Congress
terminated the federally recognized status of the tribe with the Menominee Indian
Termination Act.[17] According to the terms of the Termination Act, the federally
recognized status was to end in 1958. The tribe and the state of Wisconsin
successfully lobbied for a delay in the implementation of termination until 1961.
The tribe was opposed to termination for a number of reasons; their concerns
included the loss of tribal culture, the loss of land due to tax liens, the possibility
of bankruptcy and loss of the tribal timber industry, and the lack of tribal
members who were trained to run a county government.[18] The state of
Wisconsin was concerned that with no industry for the tribe to tax, the state
would be responsible for the large nancial outlay that would be required to
maintain governmental operations for the former reservation.[18]
On termination, the Menominee, which was one of the wealthiest tribes prior to
termination, became one of the poorest. In 1954, the tribe's timber operations
allowed it to be self-suicient.[Note 6] The tribe, which owned utility companies,
paid for a hospital, BIA salaries, local schools, and a stipend to tribal members.
The tribe was forced to use its reserve funds to develop a termination plan that
they did not want and instead of having a reserve, they entered into termination
with a $300,000 decit.[19] Menominee County was created out of the old
reservation boundaries and the tribe immediately had to nance its own police
and re protection.[Note 7] Without federal support and with no tax base, the
situation became dire. The tribe closed the hospital, sold its utility company, and
contracted those services to neighboring counties.[19] The Menominee
Enterprises, Inc., formed to care for the tribe's needs after termination, was
unable to pay property taxes and began to consider selling o tribal property. [20]
Many Menominee tribal members believed that the sponsor of the termination
bill, Senator Arthur Wilkins of Utah, intended to force the loss of rich tribal lands
to non-Indians.[20] In 1962, the state of Wisconsin took the position that the
hunting and shing rights were abrogated by the termination act and that the
tribal members were subject to state hunting and shing regulations. With the
poverty in the former reservation, the loss of hunting rights meant the loss of one
4 of 13
05/27/2015 10:32 AM
of their last remaining means of survival.[21]
State enforcement actions

In 1962, tribal members Joseph L. Sanapaw, William J. Grignon, and Francis
Basina were charged with violating state hunting and shing regulations. [22][23]
All three admitted to the acts in open court, but claimed that the Wolf River
Treaty gave them the right to hunt. The state trial court agreed and acquitted the
three. The state was given leave to pursue a writ of error and appealed to the
Wisconsin Supreme Court to answer whether the Termination Act canceled those
rights retained by treaty.[23]
The Wisconsin Supreme Court in State v. Sanapaw held that the treaty rights
were terminated by Congress.[24] In analyzing the case, the Wisconsin Supreme
Court rst had to determine whether the tribe had hunting and shing rights
under treaties with the United States. It found that although the Wolf River Treaty
did not specically mention hunting and shing rights, the term "to be held as
Indian lands are held"[25] was clear. Indians have always been able to hunt and
sh on their own land, and if a term in a treaty with Indians is ambiguous, the
Wisconsin Supreme Court found that it must be resolved in favor of the tribe.
Since the tribe originally had hunting and shing rights under the treaty, the
Wisconsin Supreme Court then looked to determine whether Congress had
removed those rights by enacting the Menominee Termination Act. The Wisconsin
Supreme Court held that Congress had used its plenary power to abrogate those
rights.[26]
The Wisconsin Supreme Court placed special emphasis on the phrase "all statutes
of the United States which aect Indians because of their status as Indians shall
no longer be applicable to the members of the tribe, and the laws of the several
States shall apply to the tribe and its members in the same manner as they apply
to other citizens or persons within their jurisdiction." [27] The Wisconsin Supreme
Court held that the latter section was controlling, despite the tribal members'
argument that hunting rights were retained by treaty rather than by statute. The
Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the tribe had lost their hunting and shing
rights.[24] The tribal members appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which
declined to hear the appeal.[28]
Federal Court of Claims

The Menominee[Note 8] sued in the U.S. Court of Claims to recover compensation
for the loss of their hunting and shing rights. The Court of Claims rst claried
that the Menominee Termination Act did not abolish the tribe or its membership,
but merely ended Federal supervision of the tribe. Since the Menominee was still
a tribe, although not one under federal trusteeship, the tribe had a right to assert
5 of 13
05/27/2015 10:32 AM
a claim arising out the Wolf River Treaty in accordance with the Indian Claims
Commission Act and the Tucker Act.[29]
The Court of Claims looked at whether the tribe had hunting and shing rights
and drew the same conclusion as the Wisconsin Supreme Courtthat the terms of
the treaty had to be resolved in the favor of the tribe, citing The Menominee Tribe
of Indians v. United States, 95 Ct.Cl. 232 (Ct.Cl., 1941). In that decision, the Court
of Claims had observed that the reason the tribe had agreed to the site of the
reservation was that it was well suited for hunting, with plenty of game. [30] The
hunting rights by treaty were therefore conrmed.[13]
The Court of Claims had to determine whether the Menominee Termination Act
had taken away that right. If it had, the tribe would have a valid claim for
compensation; but if not, then there would be no compensation. On April 14,
1967, the Court of Claims denied the claim, stating that the hunting and shing
rights had not been abrogated by the Termination Act. In arriving at this decision,
it said that the legislative history included two witnesses who stated that the Act
would not aect hunting and shing rights acquired by treaty, but would abrogate
any such rights acquired by statute.[31] Additionally, the Court of Claims observed
that Congress also amended Public Law 280 so that Indian hunting and shing
rights were protected in Wisconsin. The decision contradicted the decision of the
Wisconsin Supreme Court.[32]
On October 9, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal and
granted certiorari (a writ to the lower court to send the case to them for review)
to resolve the conict between the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the federal
Court of Claims.[22]
Supreme Court
Argument
In most appeals, the parties argue opposing positions. In this case, both the
appellee (the Menominee) and the appellant (the United States) argued that the
decision of the Court of Claims should be airmed. The State of Wisconsin, as
amicus curiae, argued that the Court of Claims ruling should be reversed.[22]
The tribe was represented by Charles A. Hobbs of Washington, D.C. The tribe
argued that the Menominee Termination Act did not extinguish treaty rights, but
instead had two purposes; to terminate federal supervision of the tribe and to
transfer to the state general criminal and civil jurisdictionwhich had already
been accomplished by Public Law 280 and that law expressly preserved hunting
and shing rights. In the event that the court would decide that the hunting and
shing rights were extinguished, then the tribe should receive compensation for
the loss of the rights.[33]
6 of 13
05/27/2015 10:32 AM
The United States was represented by Louis F. Claiborne, assistant to the U.S.
Solicitor General. The United States also argued that the Menominee Termination
Act did not extinguish hunting and shing rights under the 1854 treaty and
therefore the tribe was not due compensation from the United States. Claiborne
also argued that whatever regulatory rights which were held by the federal
government were transferred to the state of Wisconsin by the termination act. [34]
The case was originally argued on January 22, 1968. During oral argument, some
of the justices were concerned that the state of Wisconsin was not a party to the
case. Following oral arguments, the court called for reargument and requested
that Wisconsin present an oral argument in addition to the brief it had led with
the court.[35] Justice Marshall recused himself from the case, as he had been the
U.S. Solicitor General the previous year and had participated in the government's
preparation of the case.[Note 9]
Reargument
On April 25, 1968, the case was reargued. The tribe was again represented by
Hobbs, who made the same basic argument that the hunting and shing rights
were not extinguished. The state of Wisconsin was represented by Bronson La
Follette, the Attorney General of Wisconsin. La Follette argued that the plain
language of the termination act not only ended federal supervision of the tribe,
but extinguished the tribe and with it all treaty rights. He argued that the Court
of Claims ruling was incorrect and should be reversed, and that the tribe was due
compensation from the federal government.[35] The United States was again
represented by Claiborne, who reiterated his earlier argument.
Opinion of the court

Justice William O. Douglas delivered the opinion of the court. In a 6-2 decision,
the ruling of the U.S. Court of Claims was airmed, ruling that the tribe retained
its hunting and shing rights under the treaty. Douglas noted that Public Law 280
had been enacted and was fully in force for approximately seven years before the
Termination Act became eective. The section of that law that dealt with
Wisconsin provided that hunting and shing rights in "Indian Country" were
protected from state regulation and action. Thus from 1954 until termination in
1961, the Menominee's hunting and shing rights were not interfered with by
Wisconsin. The Termination Act stated that all federal statutes dealing with the
tribe were no longer in force, but Douglas noted that it was silent with regard to
treaties. The act did not specically address the hunting and shing rights, and
Douglas stated that the U.S. Supreme Court would "decline to construe the
Termination Act as a backhanded way of abrogating the hunting and shing rights
of these Indians."[36] He noted that in a similar bill for the Klamath Tribe, there
was a discussion on paying the tribe to buy out their hunting and shing rights, a
clear indication that Congress was aware of the implications. Douglas found it
7 of 13
05/27/2015 10:32 AM
hard to believe that Congress would subject the

United States to a claim for compensation without
an explicit statement to that eect. He found that
without a specic abrogation of those rights, the
tribe retained those rights.[37]
Dissent
Justice Potter
Stewart, joined by
Justice Hugo Black,
dissented. Stewart
acknowledged that
the Wolf River
Treaty
Justice William O. Douglas,
unquestionably
author of the majority opinion
conferred hunting
and shing rights
on the tribe and its
members. He stated that the Termination Act
subjected the members of the tribe to the same
laws that all other citizens of Wisconsin were held
to, including hunting and shing regulations. In
Justice Potter Stewart, author
Stewart's opinion, Public Law 280 had no bearing
of the dissenting opinion
on the case and the rights were not protected by
the Termination Act, so they were lost. Stewart did
note that this would have also made the claim for compensation valid under
Shoshone Tribe v. United States,[38] regardless of whether Congress intended it
or not. He would have reversed the decision of the Court of Claims. [39]
Subsequent developments
Menominee Tribe v. United States is a landmark case in Native American law,[40]
primarily in the area of reserved tribal rights.[41] It has been used in college
courses to explain tribal sovereignty rights, and that tribes retain some rights
even if the tribe has been terminatedas the Menominee tribe was. [42] The
decision in the case has aected subsequent legislation, such as the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act, in which Congress expressly extinguished all aboriginal
rights.[43] The case has been discussed internationally, for example in Australia
regarding the relevance of indigenous or aboriginal title.[44]
Law reviews and journals

The case has been cited in over 300 law review articles as of October 2013.[45] A
8 of 13
05/27/2015 10:32 AM
consistent point made in numerous articles is that while Congress may terminate
tribal and treaty rights, it must show a "specic intent to abrogate them". [46] It is
repeatedly cited by cases and law reviews to show that the court will construe
laws and treaties, where ambiguous, in favor of the tribes.[47] Judges and legal
experts have noted that hunting and shing rights are valuable property rights,
and if the government takes away those rights it must compensate those who hold
the rights for their loss.[48] Courts must also construe treaty rights and statutes
liberally in favor of the Indians, even when the treaty does not specically speak
of hunting and shing.[49]
Restoration of federal recognition

In 1973, Congress repealed termination and restored federal recognition of the
Menominee tribe.[50] The Menominee Restoration Act was signed by President
Richard Nixon; it repealed the Menominee Indian Termination Act, reopened the
tribal rolls, re-established the trust status and provided for the reformation of
tribal government.[51] The tribe was the rst terminated tribe to be restored to
trust and recognition status. The Restoration Act signaled the end of the
termination era.[52]
Notes
1. "Anthropologists have surmised that the Menominee, an Algonquian-speaking tribe,
may have been in the Wisconsin territory as far back as 10,000 years ago." [53]
2. The Dakota Indians are a sub-group of what is commonly known as the Sioux
tribe.[54]
3. Commonly known as the Chippewa tribe.[55]
4. As an Indian tribe, the state has no authority to tax or regulate reservation land, nor
to have any court jurisdiction over Indians on reservation land. This is exclusively
reserved to the federal government.[56]
5. Commonly known as the Stockbridge-Munsee tribe, residing on the StockbridgeMunsee Indian Reservation directly adjacent to the Menominee Reservation.[57]
These two tribal groups united prior to their arrival in Wisconsin. [58]
6. Although the tribe owned the lumber operation and sawmill, these were managed by
the BIA, with no tribal members being allowed in management positions. [59]
7. Unlike most of the world, the United States uses a multitude of local agencies, with
approximately 20,000 police forces in the country.[60]
8. The plaintis included the Menominee tribe, Menominee Enterprises Inc., four tribal
members, and the First Wisconsin Trust Co. (as trustee for the trust established by
the termination act).[61]
9. Justice Marshall recused himself from all 98 cases in the 1967-68 term in which the
government was a party.[62]
9 of 13
05/27/2015 10:32 AM
References
1. Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin History (http://web.archive.org
/web/20100925020848/http://menominee-nsn.gov/history/history.php) THE
MENOMINEE INDIAN TRIBE OF WISCONSIN (June 22, 2010) (archived from original
(http://www.menominee-nsn.gov/history/history.php), Sep. 25, 2010); David S. Brose,
Late Prehistory of the Upper Great Lakes Area, in 13 HANDBOOK OF NORTH AMERICAN
INDIANS 578 (William C. Sturtevant ed., 1978); THOMAS HUHTI, MOON WISCONSIN 218
(5th ed. 2011).
2. Treaty with the Menominee, Mar. 30, 1817, 7 Stat. 153 (http://legislink.org/us/stat7-153); Menominee Tribe of Indians, 388 F.2d 998, 1001 (Ct. Cl. 1967); 2 INDIAN
AFFAIRS: LAWS AND TREATIES 138 (Charles J. Kappler ed., 1904).
3. Treaty with the Sioux, etc., Aug. 19, 1825, 7 Stat. 272 (http://legislink.org/us/stat7-272); Menominee Tribe of Indians, 388 F.2d at 1001; Kappler at 250-55.
4. Treaty with the Chippewa, etc., Aug. 11, 1827, 7 Stat. 303 (http://legislink.org/us/stat7-303); Menominee Tribe of Indians, 388 F.2d at 1001; Kappler at 281-83.
5. 7 Stat. 272 (http://legislink.org/us/stat-7-272); 7 Stat. 303 (http://legislink.org/us/stat7-303); Kappler at 138, 250-55, 281-83.
6. Treaty with the Menominee, Feb. 8, 1831, 7 Stat. 342 (http://legislink.org/us/stat7-342); Treaty with the Menominee, Feb. 17, 1831, 7 Stat. 346 (http://legislink.org
/us/stat-7-346); Treaty with the Menominee, Oct. 27, 1832, 7 Stat. 405
(http://legislink.org/us/stat-7-405); Menominee Tribe of Indians, 388 F.2d at 1001;
Kappler at 319-25, 377-82.
7. Treaty with Menominee, Sept. 3, 1836, 7 Stat. 506 (http://legislink.org/us/stat-7-506);
Menominee Tribe of Indians, 388 F.2d at 1001; Kappler at 463-66.
8. Treaty with the Menominee, Oct. 18, 1848, 9 Stat. 952 (http://legislink.org/us/stat9-952); Menominee Tribe of Indians, 388 F.2d at 1001; Kappler at 572-574.
9. MITW History Chief Oshkosh, THE MENOMINEE INDIAN TRIBE OF WISCONSIN, (Sept.
22, 2009).
10. Treaty with the Menominee, May 12, 1854 10 Stat. 1064 (http://legislink.org/us/stat10-1064); Menominee Tribe of Indians, 388 F.2d at 1002; Kappler at 626-27.
11. 7 Stat. 342 (http://legislink.org/us/stat-7-342); Kappler at 322.
12. 10 Stat. 1064 (http://legislink.org/us/stat-10-1064); Menominee Tribe of Indians, 391
U.S. 404, 406 n.2 (1968); Kappler at 626-27.
13. Menominee Tribe of Indians, 388 F.2d at 1002.
14. NICHOLAS C. PEROFF, MENOMINEE DRUMS: TRIBAL TERMINATION AND RESTORATION,
1954-1974 52-77 (2006).
15. Verna Fowler, Termination and Restoration, in WISCONSIN INDIAN LITERATURE:
ANTHOLOGY OF NATIVE VOICES 31 (Kathleen Tigerman ed. 2006).
16. Determination of Rights and Unity for Menominee Shareholders (DRUMS)
Committee, Menominee Termination, in WISCONSIN INDIAN LITERATURE: ANTHOLOGY OF
NATIVE VOICES 34 (Kathleen Tigerman ed. 2006).
17. Menominee Termination Act, June 17, 1954, 68 Stat. 250 (http://legislink.org/us/stat68-250), codied at 25 U.S.C. 891 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode
/25/891.html)902 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/25/902.html); LAURENCE
10 of 13
05/27/2015 10:32 AM
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
11 of 13
FRENCH, LEGISLATING INDIAN COUNTRY: SIGNIFICANT MILESTONES IN TRANSFORMING

TRIBALISM 109-11 (2007).
PEROFF at 107-09.
LURIE at 53-57.
Fowler at 31.
JOHN R. WUNDER, THE INDIAN BILL OF RIGHTS, 1968 130 (1996).
Menominee Tribe of Indians, 391 U.S. at 407.
State v. Sanapaw, 124 N.W.2d 41 (Wis., 1963).
Sanapaw, 124 N.W.2d at 46-47.
10 Stat. 1064 (http://legislink.org/us/stat-10-1064); Kappler at 626-27.
Sanapaw, 124 N.W.2d at 44.
Sanapaw, 124 N.W.2d at 45 (emphasis in original).
Sanapaw v. Wisconsin, 377 U.S. 991 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/377
/991/) (1964).
Indian Claims Commission Act, Aug. 14, 1946, 63 Stat. 102 (http://legislink.org
/us/stat-63-102), codied as amended at 28 U.S.C. 1505 (http://www.law.cornell.edu
/uscode/28/1505.html); Tucker Act, Mar. 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 505 (http://legislink.org
/us/stat-24-505), codied as amended at 28 U.S.C. 1491 (http://www.law.cornell.edu
/uscode/28/1491.html); Menominee Tribe of Indians, 388 F.2d at 1000-01.
Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 95 Ct.Cl. 232 (Ct.Cl., 1941).
25 U.S.C. 891 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/25/891.html)902
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/25/902.html).
Act of August 15, 1953, Pub.L. 83280 (http://legislink.org/us/pl-83-280), 67 Stat. 588
(http://legislink.org/us/stat-67-588), codied as 18 U.S.C. 1162
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1162.html), 28 U.S.C. 1360
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1360.html), and 25 U.S.C. 1321
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/25/1321.html)1326 (http://www.law.cornell.edu
/uscode/25/1326.html); Menominee Tribe of Indians, 388 F.2d at 1004-05.
RENEE ANN CRAMER, CASH, COLOR, AND COLONIALISM: THE POLITICS OF TRIBAL
ACKNOWLEDGMENT 23 (2005); Menominee Tribe v. United States (http://www.oyez.org
/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_187), THE OYEZ PROJECT AT IIT CHICAGO-KENT COLLEGE
OF LAW, (last visited July 30, 2013); Br. of Menominee Tribe at 11-12.
Menominee Tribe v. United States (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969
/1967/1967_187), THE OYEZ PROJECT AT IIT CHICAGO-KENT COLLEGE OF LAW, (last
visited July 30, 2013); Br. of United State at 4-7.
Menominee Tribe v. United States (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969
/1967/1967_187), THE OYEZ PROJECT AT IIT CHICAGO-KENT COLLEGE OF LAW, (last
visited July 30, 2013).
Menominee Tribe of Indians, 391 U.S. at 412-13.
Shoshone Tribe v. United States, 299 U.S. 476 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases
/federal/us/299/476/) (1937).
BRUCE E. JOHANSEN, THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF NATIVE AMERICAN LEGAL TRADITION 189-90
(1998); NATIONAL INDIAN LAW LIBRARY & AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LAW LIBRARIES,
LANDMARK INDIAN LAW CASES 177-84 (2002).
DAVID E. WILKENS & K. TSIANINA LOMAWAIMA, UNEVEN GROUND: AMERICAN INDIAN
05/27/2015 10:32 AM
SOVEREIGNTY AND FEDERAL LAW 133 (2002).

42. CLARA SUE KIDWELL & ALAN R. VELIE, NATIVE AMERICAN STUDIES 62 (2005); WILLIAM
NORMAN THOMPSON, NATIVE AMERICAN ISSUES: A REFERENCE HANDBOOK 63 (2005);
CHARLES F. WILKENSON, AMERICAN INDIANS, TIME, AND THE LAW: NATIVE SOCIETIES IN A
MODERN CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY 48 (1988).
43. Joseph D. Matal, A Revisionist History of Indian Country, 14 ALASKA L. REV. 283
(1997).
44. SHAUNNAGH DORSETT & LEE GODDEN, A GUIDE TO OVERSEAS PRECEDENTS OF RELEVANCE
TO NATIVE TITLE 64, 177-78 (1998).
45. Westlaw Citing References Search (https://a.next.westlaw.com/Search
/Home.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29), WESTLAW
(Oct. 15, 2013) (subscription required).
46. Jeri Beth K. Esra, The Trust Doctrine: a Source of Protection for Native American
Sacred Sites 38 CATH. U. L. REV. 705 (1989); Robert Laurence, Thurgood Marshall's
Indian Law Opinions 27 HOW. L.J. 3 (1984); Comment: Reairming the Guarantee:
Indian Treaty Rights to Hunt and Fish O-Reservation in Minnesota 20 WM. MITCHELL
L. REV. 1177 (1994).
47. Van Alstine, Michael P. (2005), "The Death of Good Faith in Treaty Jurisprudence and
a Call for Resurrection," 93 Georgetown L.J. 1885, Georgetown University.
48. Esra at 705; Laurie Reynolds, Indian Hunting and Fishing Rights: the Role of Tribal
Sovereignty and Preemption 62 N.C. L. REV. 743 (1984).
49. Esra at 705; Charles K. Verhoeven, South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe:
Terminating Federal Protection with "Plain" Statements 72 IOWA L. REV. 1117 (1987).
50. Vanessa J. Jimenez & Soo C. Song, Concurrent Tribal and State Jurisdiction under
Public Law 280 47 AM. U. L. REV. 1117 (1998).
51. Menominee Restoration Act, Dec. 22, 1973, 87 Stat. 771 (http://legislink.org/us/stat87-771), codied as amended 25 U.S.C. 903 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode
/25/903.html)903g (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/25/903g.html); PEROFF at
225-36.
52. Jeanne Eder, Termination, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN INDIAN HISTORY 609 (Bruce E.
Johansen & Barry Pritzker eds., 2007).
53. HUHTI at 218.
54. WINFRED BLEVINS, DICTIONARY OF THE AMERICAN WEST: OVER 5,000 TERMS AND
EXPRESSIONS FROM AARIGAA! TO ZOPILOTE 113 (2001).
55. DANIEL COIT GILMAN, HARRY THURSTON PECK, & FRANK MOORE COLBY, 13 THE NEW
INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPDIA 315 (1903).
56. Wheeler Howard (Indian Reorganization) Act (1934), ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN
INDIAN HISTORY 959 (Bruce E. Johansen & Barry Pritzker eds., 2007).
57. JAMES WARREN OBERLY, A NATION OF STATESMEN: THE POLITICAL CULTURE OF THE
STOCKBRIDGE-MUNSEE MOHICANS, 1815-1972 3-4 (2005).
58. CARL WALDMAN, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES 145-48 (2009).
59. NANCY OESTREICH LURIE, WISCONSIN INDIANS 53-57 (2d ed. 2002).
60. Police: Organization and Management - The American System Of Policing
(http://web.archive.org/web/20130622220529/http://law.jrank.org/pages/1668/PoliceOrganization-Management-American-system-policing.html), LAW LIBRARY - AMERICAN
LAW AND LEGAL INFORMATION (June 22, 2013) (archived from original
(http://law.jrank.org/pages/1668/Police-Organization-Management-American-system-
12 of 13
05/27/2015 10:32 AM
policing.html), Aug. 12, 2013).

61. Menominee Tribe of Indians, 388 F.2d at 1000.
62. LAWRENCE S. WRIGHTSMAN, THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE SUPREME COURT 79 (2006).
External links
Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 391 U.S. 404, 88 S.Ct. 1705, 20
L.Ed. 697 (1968) (http://supreme.justia.com/us/391/404/case.html)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org
/w/index.php?title=Menominee_Tribe_v._United_States&oldid=664270144"
Categories: 1968 in United States case law
United States Native American treaty case law
United States Supreme Court cases Menominee tribe
United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court
This page was last modied on 27 May 2015, at 13:22.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-prot organization.
13 of 13
05/27/2015 10:32 AM

Menominee Tribe v. United States

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Menominee Tribe v. United States

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Menominee Tribe v. United States - Wikipedia, the...