menominee tribe v. united states

Menominee Tribe v. UnitedStates

Supreme Court of the United StatesArgued January 22, 1968Reargued April 26, 1968Decided May 27, 1968

Full casename

Menominee Tribe of Indiansv. 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

Priorhistory

Menominee Tribe of Indianset al. v. United States, 388F.2d 998 (Ct. Cl. 1967).

HoldingHeld that tribal hunting and shingrights retained by treaty were not

abrogated by the MenomineeTermination Act without a clear and

unequivocal statement to that eect byCongress

Court membershipChief JusticeEarl Warren

Associate JusticesHugo Black William O. Douglas

John M. Harlan II William J. Brennan, Jr.

Potter Stewart Byron WhiteAbe Fortas Thurgood Marshall

Case opinions

Menominee Tribe v. United StatesFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaMenominee Tribe v. United States, 391U.S. 404 (1968), is a case in which theSupreme Court ruled that the MenomineeIndian Tribe kept their historical huntingand shing rights even after the federalgovernment ceased to recognize the tribe.It was a landmark decision in NativeAmerican case law.The Menominee Indian Tribe had enteredinto a series of treaties with the UnitedStates which did not specically state thatthey had hunting and shing rights. In1961, Congress terminated the tribe'sfederal recognition, ending its right togovern itself, federal support of healthcare and education programs, police andre protection, and tribal rights to land. In1963, three members of the tribe werecharged with violating Wisconsin'shunting and shing laws on land whichhad been a reservation for over 100 years.The tribe members were acquitted, butwhen the state appealed, the WisconsinSupreme Court held that the Menomineetribe no longer had hunting and shingrights due to the termination action byCongress.The tribe sued the United States forcompensation in the U.S. Court of Claims,which ruled that tribal members still hadhunting and shing rights and thatCongress had not abrogated those rights.The opposite rulings by the state andfederal courts brought the issue to theSupreme Court. In 1968, the SupremeCourt held that the tribe retained itshunting and shing rights under thetreaties involved and the rights were notlost after federal recognition was ended

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

1 of 13 05/27/2015 10:32 AM

Majority Douglas, joined by Brennan,Fortas, Harlan, Warren,White

Dissent Stewart, joined by BlackMarshall 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(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode

/25/902.html), 18 U.S.C. 1162(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode

/18/1162.html)

Wikisource hasoriginal text relatedto this article:

Menominee Tribeof Indians v.United States

by the Menominee Indian Termination Actwithout a clear and unequivocal statementby Congress removing those rights.

Contents1 Background

1.1 Early treaties1.2 Treaty of 18541.3 Tribal termination1.4 State enforcement actions1.5 Federal Court of Claims

2 Supreme Court2.1 Argument2.2 Reargument2.3 Opinion of the court2.4 Dissent

3 Subsequent developments3.1 Law reviews and journals3.2 Restoration of federalrecognition

4 Notes5 References6 External links

BackgroundEarly treatiesAncestors of the Menominee Indian Tribe may have lived in the states ofWisconsin and Michigan for the last 10,000 years.[1][Note 1] Their traditionalterritory was about 10 million acres (4 million hectares). They rst acknowledgedthat they were under the protection of the United States in 1817 in the Treaty ofSt. Louis.[2] In 1825 and 1827, the treaties of Prairie du Chien[3] and Butte desMorts[4] answered boundary questions. None of the early treaties addressedhunting and shing rights.[5] In 1831, the tribe entered into the Treaty ofWashington,[6] which ceded about 3,000,000 acres (1,200,000 ha) to the federalgovernment. These two treaties reserved hunting and shing rights for the tribeon the ceded land until the President of the United States ordered the landsurveyed and sold to settlers. In 1836, the tribe entered into the Treaty of Cedar


2 of 13 05/27/2015 10:32 AM

The Crow Wing River area,showing part of the proposedMenominee reservation (area269)

Menominee Chief Oshkosh

Point,[7] under which 4,184,000 acres(1,693,000 ha) were ceded to the federalgovernment. The treaty did not mentionhunting or shing rights.In 1848, thetribe enteredinto anothertreaty with theUnited States,the Treaty ofLakePoygan,[8]which cededthe tribe'sremainingapproximately4,000,000

acres (1,600,000 ha) in exchange for 600,000acres (240,000 ha) west of the Mississippi Riverin present-day Minnesota. This treaty wascontingent on the tribe examining the landproposed for them and accepting it as suitable. In1850, Chief Oshkosh led a delegation to the CrowWing area and determined that the land was not suitable for the tribe, mainlybecause the proposed reservation was located between two warring tribes, theDakota[Note 2] and Ojibwe.[Note 3] Oshkosh then pressed for a new treaty, statingthat he "preferred a home somewhere in Wisconsin, for the poorest region inWisconsin was better than the Crow Wing."[9]

Treaty of 1854The tribe had been living in an area near the Wolf River. They entered into theTreaty of Wolf River with the United States in 1854.[10] The United States setaside 276,480 acres (111,890 ha) of land for a reservation in present dayMenominee County, Wisconsin. In return, the tribe ceded the land in Minnesotaback to the federal government. None of the previous treaties except the Treatyof Washington addressed the tribe's retained hunting and shing rights,[11] butstated 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 werefree from state taxation, regulation and court jurisdiction.[Note 4] Of the originalland, 230,000 acres (93,000 ha) of prime timberland remained under the tribe'scontrol, while the remaining land was transferred to the Mahican and Lenape (thelatter 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 thereservation, with the acquiescence of Wisconsin.[13]

Tribal terminationIn the mid- to late-1940s, the Menominee tribe was considered by a governmentsurvey to identify tribes for termination, a process in which federal recognition ofthe tribe would be withdrawn and the tribe would no longer be dependent on theBureau of Indian Aairs (BIA) to support them.[14] The Menominee were thoughtto be a tribe that could be terminated because they were one of the richest tribesin the nation.[15] The federal government thought that termination would allowthe tribal members to be assimilated into mainstream American culture,becoming hard-working, tax-paying, productive citizens.[16] In 1954, Congressterminated the federally recognized status of the tribe with the Menominee IndianTermination Act.[17] According to the terms of the Termination Act, the federallyrecognized status was to end in 1958. The tribe and the state of Wisconsinsuccessfully lobbied for a delay in the implementation of termination until 1961.The tribe was opposed to termination for a number of reasons; their concernsincluded the loss of tribal culture, the loss of land due to tax liens, the possibilityof bankruptcy and loss of the tribal timber industry, and the lack of tribalmembers who were trained to run a county government.[18] The state ofWisconsin was concerned that with no industry for the tribe to tax, the statewould be responsible for the large nancial outlay that would be required tomaintain governmental operations for the former reservation.[18]On termination, the Menominee, which was one of the wealthiest tribes prior totermination, became one of the poorest. In 1954, the tribe's timber operationsallowed 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 thatthey did not want and instead of having a reserve, they entered into terminationwith a $300,000 decit.[19] Menominee County was created out of the oldreservation boundaries and the tribe immediately had to nance its own policeand re protection.[Note 7] Without federal support and with no tax base, thesituation became dire. The tribe closed the hospital, sold its utility company, andcontracted those services to neighboring counties.[19] The MenomineeEnterprises, Inc., formed to care for the tribe's needs after termination, wasunable to pay property taxes and began to consider selling o tribal property.[20]Many Menominee tribal members believed that the sponsor of the terminationbill, Senator Arthur Wilkins of Utah, intended to force the loss of rich tribal landsto non-Indians.[20] In 1962, the state of Wisconsin took the position that thehunting and shing rights were abrogated by the termination act and that thetribal members were subject to state hunting and shing regulations. With thepoverty 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 actionsIn 1962, tribal members Joseph L. Sanapaw, William J. Grignon, and FrancisBasina 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 RiverTreaty gave them the right to hunt. The state trial court agreed and acquitted thethree. The state was given leave to pursue a writ of error and appealed to theWisconsin Supreme Court to answer whether the Termination Act canceled thoserights retained by treaty.[23]The Wisconsin Supreme Court in State v. Sanapaw held that the treaty rightswere terminated by Congress.[24] In analyzing the case, the Wisconsin SupremeCourt rst had to determine whether the tribe had hunting and shing rightsunder treaties with the United States. It found that although the Wolf River Treatydid not specically mention hunting and shing rights, the term "to be held asIndian lands are held"[25] was clear. Indians have always been able to hunt andsh on their own land, and if a term in a treaty with Indians is ambiguous, theWisconsin 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, theWisconsin Supreme Court then looked to determine whether Congress hadremoved those rights by enacting the Menominee Termination Act. The WisconsinSupreme Court held that Congress had used its plenary power to abrogate thoserights.[26]The Wisconsin Supreme Court placed special emphasis on the phrase "all statutesof the United States which aect Indians because of their status as Indians shallno longer be applicable to the members of the tribe, and the laws of the severalStates shall apply to the tribe and its members in the same manner as they applyto other citizens or persons within their jurisdiction." [27] The Wisconsin SupremeCourt held that the latter section was controlling, despite the tribal members'argument that hunting rights were retained by treaty rather than by statute. TheWisconsin Supreme Court held that the tribe had lost their hunting and shingrights.[24] The tribal members appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, whichdeclined to hear the appeal.[28]

Federal Court of ClaimsThe Menominee[Note 8] sued in the U.S. Court of Claims to recover compensationfor the loss of their hunting and shing rights. The Court of Claims rst clariedthat the Menominee Termination Act did not abolish the tribe or its membership,but merely ended Federal supervision of the tribe. Since the Menominee was stilla 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 ClaimsCommission Act and the Tucker Act.[29]The Court of Claims looked at whether the tribe had hunting and shing rightsand drew the same conclusion as the Wisconsin Supreme Courtthat the terms ofthe treaty had to be resolved in the favor of the tribe, citing The Menominee Tribeof Indians v. United States, 95 Ct.Cl. 232 (Ct.Cl., 1941). In that decision, the Courtof Claims had observed that the reason the tribe had agreed to the site of thereservation was that it was well suited for hunting, with plenty of game.[30] Thehunting rights by treaty were therefore conrmed.[13]The Court of Claims had to determine whether the Menominee Termination Acthad taken away that right. If it had, the tribe would have a valid claim forcompensation; 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 shingrights 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 Actwould not aect hunting and shing rights acquired by treaty, but would abrogateany such rights acquired by statute.[31] Additionally, the Court of Claims observedthat Congress also amended Public Law 280 so that Indian hunting and shingrights were protected in Wisconsin. The decision contradicted the decision of theWisconsin Supreme Court.[32]On October 9, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal andgranted 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 federalCourt of Claims.[22]

Supreme CourtArgumentIn most appeals, the parties argue opposing positions. In this case, both theappellee (the Menominee) and the appellant (the United States) argued that thedecision of the Court of Claims should be airmed. The State of Wisconsin, asamicus 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 tribeargued that the Menominee Termination Act did not extinguish treaty rights, butinstead had two purposes; to terminate federal supervision of the tribe and totransfer to the state general criminal and civil jurisdictionwhich had alreadybeen accomplished by Public Law 280 and that law expressly preserved huntingand shing rights. In the event that the court would decide that the hunting andshing rights were extinguished, then the tribe should receive compensation forthe 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 TerminationAct did not extinguish hunting and shing rights under the 1854 treaty andtherefore the tribe was not due compensation from the United States. Claibornealso argued that whatever regulatory rights which were held by the federalgovernment were transferred to the state of Wisconsin by the termination act.[34]The case was originally argued on January 22, 1968. During oral argument, someof the justices were concerned that the state of Wisconsin was not a party to thecase. Following oral arguments, the court called for reargument and requestedthat Wisconsin present an oral argument in addition to the brief it had led withthe court.[35] Justice Marshall recused himself from the case, as he had been theU.S. Solicitor General the previous year and had participated in the government'spreparation of the case.[Note 9]

ReargumentOn April 25, 1968, the case was reargued. The tribe was again represented byHobbs, who made the same basic argument that the hunting and shing rightswere not extinguished. The state of Wisconsin was represented by Bronson LaFollette, the Attorney General of Wisconsin. La Follette argued that the plainlanguage 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 Courtof Claims ruling was incorrect and should be reversed, and that the tribe was duecompensation from the federal government.[35] The United States was againrepresented by Claiborne, who reiterated his earlier argument.Opinion of the courtJustice 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 retainedits hunting and shing rights under the treaty. Douglas noted that Public Law 280had been enacted and was fully in force for approximately seven years before theTermination Act became eective. The section of that law that dealt withWisconsin provided that hunting and shing rights in "Indian Country" wereprotected from state regulation and action. Thus from 1954 until termination in1961, the Menominee's hunting and shing rights were not interfered with byWisconsin. The Termination Act stated that all federal statutes dealing with thetribe were no longer in force, but Douglas noted that it was silent with regard totreaties. The act did not specically address the hunting and shing rights, andDouglas stated that the U.S. Supreme Court would "decline to construe theTermination Act as a backhanded way of abrogating the hunting and shing rightsof these Indians."[36] He noted that in a similar bill for the Klamath Tribe, therewas a discussion on paying the tribe to buy out their hunting and shing rights, aclear indication that Congress was aware of the implications. Douglas found it


7 of 13 05/27/2015 10:32 AM

Justice William O. Douglas,author of the majority opinion

Justice Potter Stewart, authorof the dissenting opinion

hard to believe that Congress would subject theUnited States to a claim for compensation withoutan explicit statement to that eect. He found thatwithout a specic abrogation of those rights, thetribe retained those rights.[37]

DissentJustice PotterStewart, joined byJustice Hugo Black,dissented. Stewartacknowledged thatthe Wolf RiverTreatyunquestionablyconferred huntingand shing rightson the tribe and itsmembers. He stated that the Termination Actsubjected the members of the tribe to the samelaws that all other citizens of Wisconsin were heldto, including hunting and shing regulations. InStewart's opinion, Public Law 280 had no bearingon the case and the rights were not protected bythe Termination Act, so they were lost. Stewart did

note that this would have also made the claim for compensation valid underShoshone Tribe v. United States,[38] regardless of whether Congress intended itor not. He would have reversed the decision of the Court of Claims.[39]

Subsequent developmentsMenominee 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 collegecourses to explain tribal sovereignty rights, and that tribes retain some rightseven if the tribe has been terminatedas the Menominee tribe was.[42] Thedecision in the case has aected subsequent legislation, such as the Alaska NativeClaims Settlement Act, in which Congress expressly extinguished all aboriginalrights.[43] The case has been discussed internationally, for example in Australiaregarding the relevance of indigenous or aboriginal title.[44]

Law reviews and journalsThe 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 terminatetribal and treaty rights, it must show a "specic intent to abrogate them".[46] It isrepeatedly cited by cases and law reviews to show that the court will construelaws and treaties, where ambiguous, in favor of the tribes.[47] Judges and legalexperts have noted that hunting and shing rights are valuable property rights,and if the government takes away those rights it must compensate those who holdthe rights for their loss.[48] Courts must also construe treaty rights and statutesliberally in favor of the Indians, even when the treaty does not specically speakof hunting and shing.[49]

Restoration of federal recognitionIn 1973, Congress repealed termination and restored federal recognition of theMenominee tribe.[50] The Menominee Restoration Act was signed by PresidentRichard Nixon; it repealed the Menominee Indian Termination Act, reopened thetribal rolls, re-established the trust status and provided for the reformation oftribal government.[51] The tribe was the rst terminated tribe to be restored totrust and recognition status. The Restoration Act signaled the end of thetermination era.[52]

Notes"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]

1. The Dakota Indians are a sub-group of what is commonly known as the Siouxtribe.[54]

2.

Commonly known as the Chippewa tribe.[55]3. As an Indian tribe, the state has no authority to tax or regulate reservation land, norto have any court jurisdiction over Indians on reservation land. This is exclusivelyreserved to the federal government.[56]

4.

Commonly known as the Stockbridge-Munsee tribe, residing on the Stockbridge-Munsee Indian Reservation directly adjacent to the Menominee Reservation.[57]These two tribal groups united prior to their arrival in Wisconsin.[58]

5.

Although the tribe owned the lumber operation and sawmill, these were managed bythe BIA, with no tribal members being allowed in management positions.[59]

6. Unlike most of the world, the United States uses a multitude of local agencies, withapproximately 20,000 police forces in the country.[60]

7. The plaintis included the Menominee tribe, Menominee Enterprises Inc., four tribalmembers, and the First Wisconsin Trust Co. (as trustee for the trust established bythe termination act).[61]

8.

Justice Marshall recused himself from all 98 cases in the 1967-68 term in which thegovernment was a party.[62]

9.


9 of 13 05/27/2015 10:32 AM

ReferencesMenominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin History (http://web.archive.org/web/20100925020848/http://menominee-nsn.gov/history/history.php) THEMENOMINEE 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 AMERICANINDIANS 578 (William C. Sturtevant ed., 1978); THOMAS HUHTI, MOON WISCONSIN 218(5th ed. 2011).

1.

Treaty with the Menominee, Mar. 30, 1817, 7 Stat. 153 (http://legislink.org/us/stat-7-153); Menominee Tribe of Indians, 388 F.2d 998, 1001 (Ct. Cl. 1967); 2 INDIANAFFAIRS: LAWS AND TREATIES 138 (Charles J. Kappler ed., 1904).

2.

Treaty with the Sioux, etc., Aug. 19, 1825, 7 Stat. 272 (http://legislink.org/us/stat-7-272); Menominee Tribe of Indians, 388 F.2d at 1001; Kappler at 250-55.

3. Treaty with the Chippewa, etc., Aug. 11, 1827, 7 Stat. 303 (http://legislink.org/us/stat-7-303); Menominee Tribe of Indians, 388 F.2d at 1001; Kappler at 281-83.

4. 7 Stat. 272 (http://legislink.org/us/stat-7-272); 7 Stat. 303 (http://legislink.org/us/stat-7-303); Kappler at 138, 250-55, 281-83.

5. Treaty with the Menominee, Feb. 8, 1831, 7 Stat. 342 (http://legislink.org/us/stat-7-342); 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.

6.

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.

7. Treaty with the Menominee, Oct. 18, 1848, 9 Stat. 952 (http://legislink.org/us/stat-9-952); Menominee Tribe of Indians, 388 F.2d at 1001; Kappler at 572-574.

8. MITW History Chief Oshkosh, THE MENOMINEE INDIAN TRIBE OF WISCONSIN, (Sept.22, 2009).

9. Treaty with the Menominee, May 12, 1854 10 Stat. 1064 (http://legislink.org/us/stat-10-1064); Menominee Tribe of Indians, 388 F.2d at 1002; Kappler at 626-27.

10. 7 Stat. 342 (http://legislink.org/us/stat-7-342); Kappler at 322.11. 10 Stat. 1064 (http://legislink.org/us/stat-10-1064); Menominee Tribe of Indians, 391U.S. 404, 406 n.2 (1968); Kappler at 626-27.

12. Menominee Tribe of Indians, 388 F.2d at 1002.13. NICHOLAS C. PEROFF, MENOMINEE DRUMS: TRIBAL TERMINATION AND RESTORATION,1954-1974 52-77 (2006).

14. Verna Fowler, Termination and Restoration, in WISCONSIN INDIAN LITERATURE:ANTHOLOGY OF NATIVE VOICES 31 (Kathleen Tigerman ed. 2006).

15. Determination of Rights and Unity for Menominee Shareholders (DRUMS)Committee, Menominee Termination, in WISCONSIN INDIAN LITERATURE: ANTHOLOGY OFNATIVE VOICES 34 (Kathleen Tigerman ed. 2006).

16.

Menominee Termination Act, June 17, 1954, 68 Stat. 250 (http://legislink.org/us/stat-68-250), 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

17.


10 of 13 05/27/2015 10:32 AM

FRENCH, LEGISLATING INDIAN COUNTRY: SIGNIFICANT MILESTONES IN TRANSFORMINGTRIBALISM 109-11 (2007).PEROFF at 107-09.18. LURIE at 53-57.19. Fowler at 31.20. JOHN R. WUNDER, THE INDIAN BILL OF RIGHTS, 1968 130 (1996).21. Menominee Tribe of Indians, 391 U.S. at 407.22. State v. Sanapaw, 124 N.W.2d 41 (Wis., 1963).23. Sanapaw, 124 N.W.2d at 46-47.24. 10 Stat. 1064 (http://legislink.org/us/stat-10-1064); Kappler at 626-27.25. Sanapaw, 124 N.W.2d at 44.26. Sanapaw, 124 N.W.2d at 45 (emphasis in original).27. Sanapaw v. Wisconsin, 377 U.S. 991 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/377/991/) (1964).

28. 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.

29.

Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 95 Ct.Cl. 232 (Ct.Cl., 1941).30. 25 U.S.C. 891 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/25/891.html)902(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/25/902.html).

31. 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.

32.

RENEE ANN CRAMER, CASH, COLOR, AND COLONIALISM: THE POLITICS OF TRIBALACKNOWLEDGMENT 23 (2005); Menominee Tribe v. United States (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_187), THE OYEZ PROJECT AT IIT CHICAGO-KENT COLLEGEOF LAW, (last visited July 30, 2013); Br. of Menominee Tribe at 11-12.

33.

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, (lastvisited July 30, 2013); Br. of United State at 4-7.

34.

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, (lastvisited July 30, 2013).

35.

Menominee Tribe of Indians, 391 U.S. at 412-13.36. Menominee Tribe of Indians, 391 U.S. at 413.37. Shoshone Tribe v. United States, 299 U.S. 476 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/299/476/) (1937).

38. Menominee Tribe of Indians, 391 U.S. at 417.39. 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).

40.

DAVID E. WILKENS & K. TSIANINA LOMAWAIMA, UNEVEN GROUND: AMERICAN INDIAN41.


11 of 13 05/27/2015 10:32 AM

SOVEREIGNTY AND FEDERAL LAW 133 (2002).CLARA SUE KIDWELL & ALAN R. VELIE, NATIVE AMERICAN STUDIES 62 (2005); WILLIAMNORMAN THOMPSON, NATIVE AMERICAN ISSUES: A REFERENCE HANDBOOK 63 (2005);CHARLES F. WILKENSON, AMERICAN INDIANS, TIME, AND THE LAW: NATIVE SOCIETIES IN AMODERN CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY 48 (1988).

42.

Joseph D. Matal, A Revisionist History of Indian Country, 14 ALASKA L. REV. 283(1997).

43. SHAUNNAGH DORSETT & LEE GODDEN, A GUIDE TO OVERSEAS PRECEDENTS OF RELEVANCETO NATIVE TITLE 64, 177-78 (1998).

44. Westlaw Citing References Search (https://a.next.westlaw.com/Search/Home.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29), WESTLAW(Oct. 15, 2013) (subscription required).

45.

Jeri Beth K. Esra, The Trust Doctrine: a Source of Protection for Native AmericanSacred Sites 38 CATH. U. L. REV. 705 (1989); Robert Laurence, Thurgood Marshall'sIndian 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. MITCHELLL. REV. 1177 (1994).

46.

Van Alstine, Michael P. (2005), "The Death of Good Faith in Treaty Jurisprudence anda Call for Resurrection," 93 Georgetown L.J. 1885, Georgetown University.

47. Esra at 705; Laurie Reynolds, Indian Hunting and Fishing Rights: the Role of TribalSovereignty and Preemption 62 N.C. L. REV. 743 (1984).

48. Esra at 705; Charles K. Verhoeven, South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe:Terminating Federal Protection with "Plain" Statements 72 IOWA L. REV. 1117 (1987).

49. Vanessa J. Jimenez & Soo C. Song, Concurrent Tribal and State Jurisdiction underPublic Law 280 47 AM. U. L. REV. 1117 (1998).

50. Menominee Restoration Act, Dec. 22, 1973, 87 Stat. 771 (http://legislink.org/us/stat-87-771), 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 at225-36.

51.

Jeanne Eder, Termination, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN INDIAN HISTORY 609 (Bruce E.Johansen & Barry Pritzker eds., 2007).

52. HUHTI at 218.53. WINFRED BLEVINS, DICTIONARY OF THE AMERICAN WEST: OVER 5,000 TERMS ANDEXPRESSIONS FROM AARIGAA! TO ZOPILOTE 113 (2001).

54. DANIEL COIT GILMAN, HARRY THURSTON PECK, & FRANK MOORE COLBY, 13 THE NEWINTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPDIA 315 (1903).

55. Wheeler Howard (Indian Reorganization) Act (1934), ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICANINDIAN HISTORY 959 (Bruce E. Johansen & Barry Pritzker eds., 2007).

56. JAMES WARREN OBERLY, A NATION OF STATESMEN: THE POLITICAL CULTURE OF THESTOCKBRIDGE-MUNSEE MOHICANS, 1815-1972 3-4 (2005).

57. CARL WALDMAN, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES 145-48 (2009).58. NANCY OESTREICH LURIE, WISCONSIN INDIANS 53-57 (2d ed. 2002).59. Police: Organization and Management - The American System Of Policing(http://web.archive.org/web/20130622220529/http://law.jrank.org/pages/1668/Police-Organization-Management-American-system-policing.html), LAW LIBRARY - AMERICANLAW AND LEGAL INFORMATION (June 22, 2013) (archived from original(http://law.jrank.org/pages/1668/Police-Organization-Management-American-system-

60.


12 of 13 05/27/2015 10:32 AM

policing.html), Aug. 12, 2013).Menominee Tribe of Indians, 388 F.2d at 1000.61. LAWRENCE S. WRIGHTSMAN, THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE SUPREME COURT 79 (2006).62.

External linksMenominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 391 U.S. 404, 88 S.Ct. 1705, 20L.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 lawUnited States Native American treaty case lawUnited States Supreme Court cases Menominee tribeUnited 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-ShareAlikeLicense; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to theTerms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a registered trademark of theWikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-prot organization.


13 of 13 05/27/2015 10:32 AM

menominee tribe v. united states

Documents