215:
consequences of making permanent the heirship of allotments. Lands allotted to individual
Indians were passed from generation to generation, just as any other family asset passes to heirs. Probate proceedings commonly dictated that land interests be divided equally among every eligible heir unless otherwise stated in a will. As wills were not, and are not, commonly used by Indians, the size of land interests continually diminished as they were passed down from one heir to the next generation. The result was that, by the mid-20th century, an original allotted land parcel of 160 acres (0.65 km) could have more than 100 owners. While the parcel of land had not changed in size, each individual beneficiary had an undivided fractional interest in the 160 acres (0.65 km). It made it impossible to effectively use the land.
28:
314:, which would have caused serious disruption of the regulation of Indian gaming because the Commission used Internet connections to conduct fingerprint checks for background investigations of persons working in the gaming industry. The NIGC strongly resisted the imposition of the shut down order and, in doing so, helped establish its status as an independent federal agency. Following a May 14, 2008, order of the D.C. District Court, BIA and other Interior bureaus and offices were reconnected to the Internet.
439:, the Office of Hearings and Appeals, the Office of the Special Trustee, and the Office of Historical Trust Accounting had been disconnected since December 17, 2001, when the government entered a Consent Order that stipulated how affected government offices could demonstrate proper compliance and reconnect to the internet. Judge Robertson's order vacated the Consent Order. In the following weeks, these offices and bureaus were reconnected, and their websites again became publicly accessible.
268:. According to Cobell, "the case has revealed mismanagement, ineptness, dishonesty, and delay of federal officials." The plaintiffs alleged that "the government illegally withheld more than $ 150 billion from Indians whose lands were taken in the 1880s to lease to oil, timber, minerals and other companies for a fee." Since inception the Indian plaintiff class was represented by attorneys Dennis M. Gingold (who left in 2012 after the settlement), Thaddeus Holt, and attorneys from the
187:
with a stake in the allotted lands, and the lands would be managed for the benefit of the individual allottees. Indians could not sell, lease, or otherwise encumber their allotted lands without government approval. Where the tribes resisted allotment, it could be imposed. After twenty-five years, the allotted lands would become subject to taxation. Many allottees did not understand the tax system, or did not have the money to pay the taxes, and lost their lands at that time.
578:
140:
against the U.S. in history, but this is disputed. Plaintiffs contend that the number of class members is around 500,000, while defendants maintain it is closer to 250,000. The potential liability of the U.S. government in the case is also disputed: plaintiffs have suggested a figure as high as $ 176
306:
Due to a court order (at the request of the plaintiffs) in the litigation, portions of
Interior's website, including the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), were shut down beginning in December 2001. The stated reason for the shutdown order was to protect the integrity of trust data in light of concerns
241:
in
Montana. In the late 20th century, she became increasingly concerned about evidence that the federal government had mismanaged trust accounts and failed to pay money owed to Native Americans. After efforts to lobby for reform in the 1980s and 1990s were not successful, she decided to file a class
186:
Section 5 of the Dawes Act required the United States to "hold the land thus allotted, for the period of twenty-five years, in trust for the sole use and benefit of the Indian to whom such allotment shall have been made…" During the trust period, individual accounts were to be set up for each Indian
157:
By
November 2016, the Department of Interior had paid $ 900 million to individual landholders for the fair market value of their fractionated lands, and transferred an estimated 1.7 million acres to tribal reservations for communal use. As more reservations are participating in the program, the pace
423:
The
Appeals Court concluded that some of Judge Lamberth's statements went too far, and "on several occasions the district court or its appointees exceeded the role of impartial arbiter." The Court wrote that Lamberth believed that racism at Interior continued and is "a dinosaur – the
206:
ownership of lands over a period of 25 years, about one generation. The theory that
Indians could be turned into useful subsistence farmers, working their allotted lands, was overwhelmingly unsuccessful. Much of the land they were allotted in the arid West was unsuitable for small family farms, and
182:
are the records of the members of each tribe who were registered by government representatives at the time. The total land area that was allotted was small compared to the amount of land that had been held communally by tribes in their reservations at the passage of the Act. The government declared
518:. It contributes money on a quarterly basis from sales in the buy-back program, with a cap of $ 60 million. By November 2016, the total amount contributed to the scholarship fund so far was $ 40 million. The Scholarship Fund provides financial assistance through scholarships to American Indian and
166:
The history of the Indian trust is inseparable from the larger context of the
Federal government's relationship with American Indians, and its policies as that relationship evolved. At its core, the Indian trust is an artifact of a nineteenth-century Federal policy. Its late 20th-century form bore
482:
class-action trust case (and four Indian water-rights cases.) Among the provisions of the settlement are for the government to buy land from Indian owners, which has been highly fractionated by being divided among heirs over the generations, and return it to communal tribal ownership. This was to
419:
in contempt of court for their handling of the case. The appellate court reversed
Lamberth several times, including the contempt charge against Norton. After a particularly harsh opinion in 2005, in which Lamberth lambasted the Interior Department as racist, the government petitioned the Court of
214:
In the early 1900s, the federal government passed a series of statutes that together made the government's trusteeship of these lands a permanent arrangement. The
Department of Interior's trusteeship is sometimes referred to as an "evolved trust." Little thought was given at the time to the
391:
In June 2001 Secretary of the
Interior Norton issued a directive creating the Office of Historical Trust Accounting (OHTA), "to plan, organize, direct, and execute the historical accounting of Individual Indian Money Trust (IIM) accounts," as mandated by both the Court and the 1994 Act.
149:
and to return it to reservations and communal tribal ownership. In addition, a scholarship fund for Native American and Alaska Native students was created, to be funded from purchase of fractionated lands. It is named the Cobell Educational Scholarship Fund in honor of lead plaintiff
338: – plaintiffs contend that a complete accounting will show the IIM accounts to be misstated on the order of billions of dollars. If that contention were supported by the Court, plaintiffs would leverage such a finding to seek an adjustment of all IIM account balances.
207:
they were subject to abuse by speculators. Within a decade of passage of the Dawes Act, the policy began to be adjusted because of government concerns about Indian competency to manage land. As late as 1928, the overseers were extremely reluctant to grant fee patents to Indians. The
354:
lthough the Department of the Interior makes available to all IIM account holders the daily balance of their account and can provide periodic statements of the account balances, the Department does not provide all account holders periodic statements of their account performance.
201:
The early Indian trust system evolved from a series of adjustments to a policy that was gradually abandoned, then finally repealed. The allotment regime created by the Dawes Act was not intended to be permanent. The expectation was that Native Americans would gradually assume
113:: the Department of Interior and the Department of the Treasury for mismanagement of Indian trust funds. It was settled in 2009. The plaintiffs claim that the U.S. government has incorrectly accounted for the income from Indian trust assets, which are legally owned by the
404:, siding with the government, removed Judge Lamberth from the case – finding that Lamberth had lost his objectivity. "We conclude, reluctantly, that this is one of those rare cases in which reassignment is necessary," the judges wrote.
525:
In addition to payments to individual plaintiffs, the government has paid $ 900 million to individuals to buy back the equivalent of 1.7 million acres in fractionated land interests, restoring more of the land base of reservations to tribal control.
1778:
424:
morally and culturally oblivious hand-me-down of a disgracefully racist and imperialist government that should have been buried a century ago, the last pathetic outpost of the indifference and anglocentrism we thought we had left behind."
329:
case, with plaintiffs contending that the Government is in breach of its trust duties to Indian beneficiaries. Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of a complete historical accounting of all Individual Indian Monies (IIM) accounts. While
510:
website indicated mailing of checks to "approximately 263,500" claimants. "Over two-thirds of checks have been cashed within 10 days of their arrival and over 80% of class members have received their Historical Accounting payments."
856:
Washburn, Kevin (Spring 2010). "Agency Culture and Conflict: Federal Implementation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act by the National Indian Gaming Commission, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Department of Justice".
1641:
1451:
691:
154:, who filed suit against the government in 1996 and persisted with the case until settlement. The scholarship fund has a cap of $ 60 million; $ 40 million had been contributed to the fund by November 2016.
144:
The case was settled for $ 3.4 billion in 2009. $ 1.4 billion was allocated to be paid to the plaintiffs and $ 2 billion allocated to repurchase fractionated land interests from those distributed under the
1741:
499:
signed legislation authorizing government funding of a final version of the $ 3.4 billion settlement in December 2010, raising the possibility of resolution after fourteen years of litigation. Judge
1557:
174:
of Indians was to "introduce among the Indians the customs and pursuits of civilized life and gradually absorb them into the mass of our citizens." Under the "General Allotment Act of 1887" (the
1332:
401:
435:
On May 14, 2008, Judge James Robertson issued an order allowing five offices and bureaus of the Department of Interior to be reconnected to the internet. The Office of the Solicitor, the
122:
38:
967:
884:
770:
1593:
411:, was known for speaking his mind. He repeatedly ruled for the Native Americans in their class-action lawsuit. His opinions condemned the government and found Interior secretaries
1629:
1404:
1284:
1605:
1260:
211:
of that year, which assessed the effects of federal policy toward Native Americans, advocated making Indian landowners undergo a probationary period to "prove" competence.
1616:
1356:
1120:
307:
that trust data could be accessed and manipulated by persons outside the Department. The order also prevented persons within the Department from using the Internet.
1814:
1799:
1682:
1028:
688:
368:
In December 1999 the District Court for the District of Columbia found for the plaintiffs and identified five specific breaches that warranted prospective relief:
1236:
1804:
1646:
1621:
1340:
384:
The Secretary of the Treasury Had Breached His Fiduciary Duty to Retain IIM-Related Trust Documents and Had No Remedial Plan to Address This Breach of Duty
183:
Indian lands remaining after allotment as "surplus" and opened them for non-Indian settlement, resulting in the loss of millions of acres of tribal lands.
1276:
345:
he Department of the Interior cannot provide all account holders with a quarterly report which provides the source of funds, and the gains and losses.
486:$ 1.4 billion of the settlement is allocated to plaintiffs in the suit. Up to $ 2 billion is allocated for re-purchase of lands distributed under the
334:
is technically not a money damages case – claims for money damages against the Government in excess of $ 10,000 must be brought in the
178:), communal tribal lands were divided and assigned to heads of households as individually owned parcels 40–160 acres (0.16–0.65 km) in size. The
1380:
514:
As another part of the settlement, the government set up a scholarship fund, named the Cobell Education Scholarship Fund in honor of lead plaintiff
361:
he Department of the Interior does not provide adequate staffing, supervision and training for all aspects of trust fund management and accounting.
265:
261:
1809:
1766:
1082:
1044:
936:
507:
1662:
1587:
1563:
1133:
725:
335:
130:
106:
1244:
1113:
964:
774:
375:
The Secretary of the Interior Had No Written Plan Addressing the Retention of IIM-Related Trust Documents Necessary to Render an Accounting
223:
919:
27:
1551:
1212:
1771:
1599:
595:
1721:
1316:
1180:
661:
311:
1268:
358:
Department of the Interior does not have written policies and procedures for all trust fund management and accounting functions.
642:
1106:
226:. This was part of an effort to encourage Native American tribes to restore their governments and control over communal lands.
614:
1705:
1308:
987:
795:
599:
1539:
1093:
561:
475:
621:
1726:
1581:
1420:
1129:
1736:
1521:
269:
454:
On July 29, 2009, the D.C. Court of Appeals vacated the award and remanded the District Court's previous decision in
348:
he Department of the Interior does not adequately control the receipts and disbursements of all IIM account holders.
1156:
628:
129:
asserted no claims for mismanagement of the trust assets, since such claims could only properly be asserted in the
114:
588:
381:
The Secretary of the Interior Had No Written Plan Addressing the Staffing of Interior's Trust Management Functions
351:
he Department of the Interior's periodic reconciliations are insufficient to assure the accuracy of all accounts.
303:, who eventually became a harsh critic of the Department of Interior, making a series of sharply worded opinions.
1515:
1442:
1300:
219:
812:
1667:
1569:
1545:
1372:
436:
110:
610:
1716:
1527:
1731:
1634:
1509:
1388:
1292:
1228:
1188:
545:
1479:
1396:
1172:
273:
238:
196:
171:
1077:
1164:
840:
471:
137:
1672:
1148:
1098:
126:
1711:
1692:
1497:
1485:
1473:
1467:
1434:
1003:
541:
474:
announced having reached a negotiated settlement in the trust case. In 2010 Congress passed the
916:
635:
447:
In 2008, the district court awarded the plaintiffs $ 455.6 million, which both sides appealed.
1687:
1324:
1196:
892:
870:
866:
721:
170:
During the late 1800s, Congress and the Executive branch believed that the best way to foster
689:
Tanya H. Lee, "'Elouise Cobell is my hero': Awarded Posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom"
257:
118:
102:
1699:
1428:
1348:
1252:
1220:
1086:
971:
923:
844:
695:
500:
289:
253:
1068:
Settlement Website (operated by the Claims Administrator / Counsel for Cobell Plaintiffs)
1015:
1756:
1533:
1204:
960:
714:
540:
to evaluate the Indian trust system. The commission included five members, including a
515:
300:
249:
234:
151:
98:
1030:
Salazar Names Members to National Commission on Indian Trust Administration and Reform
280:. The Department of the Interior was represented by presidential appointees, first by
1793:
1761:
1746:
1364:
549:
519:
416:
408:
281:
277:
208:
1575:
496:
483:
correct a longstanding issue that was supposed to have been a temporary provision.
326:
91:
1779:
United States Congressional Joint Special Committee on Conditions of Indian Tribes
534:
Following the settlement, in late 2011, the Secretary of the Interior created the
1045:"Anderson Named to National Commission on Indian Trust Administration and Reform"
1677:
577:
412:
293:
285:
179:
522:
students wishing to pursue post-secondary and graduate education and training.
1751:
203:
141:
billion, and defendants have suggested a number in the low millions, at most.
896:
1503:
1491:
488:
341:
Department of the Interior (DOI) Factual Stipulations (filed June 11, 1999)
175:
146:
503:
was to oversee a fairness hearing on the settlement in the spring of 2011.
420:
Appeals to remove him, saying he was too biased to continue with the case.
372:
The Secretary of the Interior Had No Written Plan to Gather Missing Data
218:
The allotment policy was formally repealed in 1934, with passage of the
1079:
Restoring Trust: The Reformation of Indian Trust Management (1994-2007)
965:"Obama Hails Passage of Settlement for Native Americans, Black Farmers"
94:
743:
The Aggressions of Civilization: Federal Indian Policy since the 1880s
310:
In 2002, the Department ordered the extension of the shut down to the
816:
716:
A Final Promise: The Campaign to Assimilate the Indians, 1880–1920
1452:
List of United States Supreme Court cases involving Indian tribes
427:
The Appeals Court ordered the case reassigned to another judge .
260:, Thomas Maulson, and James Louis Larose. The defendants are the
1102:
1033:(press release), U.S. Department of Interior, November 30, 2011
388:
This decision was upheld by Court of Appeals in February 2001.
571:
378:
The Secretary of the Interior Had No Written Architecture Plan
1064:
537:
National Commission on Indian Trust Administration and Reform
1333:
County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State
837:
402:
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
1072:
937:"Obama Admin Strikes $ 3.4B Deal in Indian Trust Lawsuit"
478:, which provided $ 3.4 billion for the settlement of the
123:
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
117:, but held in trust for individual Native Americans (the
39:
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
885:"At U.S. Urging, Court Throws Lamberth Off Indian Case"
237:
was a banker and treasurer of the federally recognized
109:
representatives in 1996 against two departments of the
1594:
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
1558:
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
248:
was filed on June 10, 1996. The named plaintiffs are
1405:
City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York
1285:
Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida
1655:
1615:
1606:
Cherokee Nation Truth in Advertising for Native Art
1460:
1261:
Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation
1140:
1018:, Media Announcements, Department of Interior, 2016
741:Cadwalader, Sandra L. and Vine Deloria Jr. (1984).
602:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
57:
52:
44:
34:
20:
1073:Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians
713:
1357:Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield
1683:Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
988:James Warren, "A Victory for Native Americans?"
796:James Warren, "A Victory for Native Americans?"
1237:United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Co.
1006:, Media Announcements, Dept. of Interior, 2016
407:Lamberth, appointed to the bench by President
136:The case is sometimes reported as the largest
1114:
8:
1341:South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc.
758:Third Annual Message (on the Indian problem)
167:the imprint of subsequent policy evolution.
684:
682:
680:
678:
1277:McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission
1121:
1107:
1099:
1016:"Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations"
978:30 November 2010, accessed 1 December 2011
702:23 November 2016; accessed 5 December 2016
26:
17:
720:. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
662:Learn how and when to remove this message
745:. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
266:United States Department of the Treasury
262:United States Department of the Interior
1630:Federal recognition of Native Hawaiians
674:
451:569 F. Supp.2d 223, 226 (D.D.C. 2008).
1815:United States Bureau of Indian Affairs
1800:United States Native American case law
1051:, Harvard Law School, January 16, 2012
1564:American Indian Religious Freedom Act
1381:Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho
1134:Native Americans in the United States
802:7 June 2010; accessed 26 October 2016
506:A December 2014 press release on the
460:See, Cobell v. Salazar (Cobell XXII),
336:United States Court of Federal Claims
131:United States Court of Federal Claims
7:
1245:Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States
756:President Chester A. Arthur (1884),
600:adding citations to reliable sources
544:professor and the presidents of the
224:Franklin D. Roosevelt administration
1805:United States class action case law
1552:Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
1213:Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy
1004:Cobell Education Scholarship Fund"
935:Reis, Patrick (December 8, 2009).
14:
1722:National Indian Gaming Commission
1317:Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe
1181:New York ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble
813:"the Native American Rights Fund"
312:National Indian Gaming Commission
1269:Menominee Tribe v. United States
576:
470:On December 8, 2009, the Barack
1476:(1790,1793,1796,1799,1802,1834)
587:needs additional citations for
462:573 F.3d 808 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
299:The case was assigned to Judge
1810:2008 in United States case law
1706:In the Courts of the Conqueror
1309:Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez
318:Early victories for plaintiffs
162:Early Federal Indian trust law
1:
1588:Native American Languages Act
562:List of class-action lawsuits
476:Claims Resolution Act of 2010
121:). The case was filed in the
1727:Native American civil rights
1582:Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
1421:Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
1742:Recognition of sacred sites
1737:Native American Rights Fund
1642:Federally recognized tribes
1522:Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act
443:Historical accounting trial
270:Native American Rights Fund
158:of buy back has increased.
1831:
1600:Indian Arts and Crafts Act
1157:Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
1094:Findlaw page on the action
194:
115:Department of the Interior
1516:Indian Reorganization Act
1443:Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta
1301:United States v. Antelope
859:Arizona State Law Journal
712:Hoxie, Frederick (1984).
222:of 1934 (IRA) during the
220:Indian Reorganization Act
25:
1668:Bureau of Indian Affairs
1570:Indian Child Welfare Act
1373:South Dakota v. Bourland
437:Bureau of Indian Affairs
364:record keeping system .
191:Fruit of a failed policy
111:United States government
1717:Long Walk of the Navajo
1647:State recognized tribes
1546:Indian Civil Rights Act
1732:Native American gaming
1635:Legal status of Hawaii
1510:Indian Citizenship Act
1389:Idaho v. United States
1293:Bryan v. Itasca County
1229:Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock
1189:Standing Bear v. Crook
546:Quinault Indian Nation
400:On July 11, 2006, the
1540:Indian Relocation Act
1397:United States v. Lara
1173:Fellows v. Blacksmith
700:Indian Country Today,
449:Cobell v. Kempthorne,
431:Internet reconnection
239:Blackfeet Confederacy
197:Competency Commission
1165:Worcester v. Georgia
891:. January 31, 2024.
777:on November 14, 2006
596:improve this article
472:Obama administration
138:class-action lawsuit
75:Cobell v. Kempthorne
1712:Indian reservations
1673:Cherokee Commission
1149:Johnson v. McIntosh
611:"Cobell v. Salazar"
1772:Self-determination
1767:Tribal sovereignty
1693:Eagle-bone whistle
1486:Indian Removal Act
1474:Nonintercourse Act
1468:Blood quantum laws
1435:McGirt v. Oklahoma
1085:2015-06-02 at the
970:2011-02-01 at the
922:2008-09-07 at the
843:2008-06-25 at the
694:2016-11-25 at the
542:Harvard Law School
127:original complaint
1787:
1786:
1688:Eagle feather law
1622:State recognition
1413:Cobell v. Salazar
1325:Solem v. Bartlett
1197:Ex parte Crow Dog
1066:Cobell v. Salazar
1049:Harvard Law Today
771:"Indiantrust.com"
727:978-0-8032-2323-3
672:
671:
664:
646:
480:Cobell v. Salazar
246:Cobell v. Babbitt
119:beneficial owners
87:Cobell v. Babbitt
69:Cobell v. Salazar
65:
64:
21:Cobell v. Salazar
1822:
1663:Aboriginal title
1480:Civilization Act
1416:(D.C. Cir. 2009)
1123:
1116:
1109:
1100:
1053:
1052:
1041:
1035:
1034:
1025:
1019:
1013:
1007:
1001:
995:
985:
979:
976:Huffington Post,
958:
952:
951:
949:
947:
932:
926:
914:
908:
907:
905:
903:
881:
875:
874:
853:
847:
835:
829:
828:
826:
824:
819:on July 20, 2006
815:. Archived from
809:
803:
793:
787:
786:
784:
782:
773:. Archived from
767:
761:
760:
753:
747:
746:
738:
732:
731:
719:
709:
703:
686:
667:
660:
656:
653:
647:
645:
604:
580:
572:
539:
538:
396:Lamberth removed
325:is at bottom an
258:Mildred Cleghorn
81:Cobell v. Norton
30:
18:
1830:
1829:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1783:
1700:Hunting license
1651:
1620:
1611:
1528:Nationality Act
1456:
1429:Sharp v. Murphy
1349:Hodel v. Irving
1253:Williams v. Lee
1221:Talton v. Mayes
1136:
1127:
1087:Wayback Machine
1061:
1056:
1043:
1042:
1038:
1027:
1026:
1022:
1014:
1010:
1002:
998:
986:
982:
972:Wayback Machine
959:
955:
945:
943:
934:
933:
929:
924:Wayback Machine
915:
911:
901:
899:
889:Washington Post
883:
882:
878:
855:
854:
850:
845:Wayback Machine
836:
832:
822:
820:
811:
810:
806:
794:
790:
780:
778:
769:
768:
764:
755:
754:
750:
740:
739:
735:
728:
711:
710:
706:
696:Wayback Machine
687:
676:
668:
657:
651:
648:
605:
603:
593:
581:
570:
558:
536:
535:
532:
468:
445:
433:
398:
320:
290:Dirk Kempthorne
254:Earl Old Person
232:
199:
193:
164:
107:Native American
12:
11:
5:
1828:
1826:
1818:
1817:
1812:
1807:
1802:
1792:
1791:
1785:
1784:
1782:
1781:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1764:
1759:
1757:Trail of Tears
1754:
1749:
1744:
1739:
1734:
1729:
1724:
1719:
1714:
1709:
1702:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1685:
1680:
1675:
1670:
1665:
1659:
1657:
1653:
1652:
1650:
1649:
1644:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1626:
1624:
1613:
1612:
1610:
1609:
1603:
1597:
1591:
1585:
1579:
1573:
1567:
1561:
1555:
1549:
1543:
1537:
1534:Public Law 280
1531:
1525:
1519:
1513:
1507:
1501:
1495:
1489:
1483:
1477:
1471:
1470:(1705 onwards)
1464:
1462:
1458:
1457:
1455:
1454:
1448:
1447:
1439:
1425:
1417:
1409:
1401:
1393:
1385:
1377:
1369:
1361:
1353:
1345:
1337:
1329:
1321:
1313:
1305:
1297:
1289:
1281:
1273:
1265:
1257:
1249:
1241:
1233:
1225:
1217:
1209:
1205:Elk v. Wilkins
1201:
1193:
1192:(D. Neb. 1879)
1185:
1177:
1169:
1161:
1153:
1144:
1142:
1138:
1137:
1128:
1126:
1125:
1118:
1111:
1103:
1097:
1096:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1070:
1060:
1059:External links
1057:
1055:
1054:
1036:
1020:
1008:
996:
980:
961:Mary C. Curtis
953:
941:New York Times
927:
909:
876:
848:
830:
804:
788:
762:
748:
733:
726:
704:
673:
670:
669:
584:
582:
575:
569:
566:
565:
564:
557:
554:
531:
528:
516:Elouise Cobell
467:
464:
444:
441:
432:
429:
397:
394:
386:
385:
382:
379:
376:
373:
366:
365:
362:
359:
356:
352:
349:
346:
319:
316:
301:Royce Lamberth
292:, and finally
250:Elouise Cobell
235:Elouise Cobell
231:
228:
192:
189:
163:
160:
152:Elouise Cobell
99:Elouise Cobell
63:
62:
59:
55:
54:
50:
49:
46:
42:
41:
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1827:
1816:
1813:
1811:
1808:
1806:
1803:
1801:
1798:
1797:
1795:
1780:
1777:
1773:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1765:
1763:
1762:Treaty rights
1760:
1758:
1755:
1753:
1750:
1748:
1747:Seminole Wars
1745:
1743:
1740:
1738:
1735:
1733:
1730:
1728:
1725:
1723:
1720:
1718:
1715:
1713:
1710:
1708:
1707:
1703:
1701:
1698:
1694:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1686:
1684:
1681:
1679:
1676:
1674:
1671:
1669:
1666:
1664:
1661:
1660:
1658:
1654:
1648:
1645:
1643:
1640:
1636:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1628:
1627:
1625:
1623:
1618:
1614:
1607:
1604:
1601:
1598:
1595:
1592:
1589:
1586:
1583:
1580:
1577:
1574:
1571:
1568:
1565:
1562:
1559:
1556:
1553:
1550:
1547:
1544:
1541:
1538:
1535:
1532:
1529:
1526:
1523:
1520:
1517:
1514:
1511:
1508:
1505:
1502:
1499:
1496:
1493:
1490:
1487:
1484:
1481:
1478:
1475:
1472:
1469:
1466:
1465:
1463:
1459:
1453:
1450:
1449:
1445:
1444:
1440:
1437:
1436:
1431:
1430:
1426:
1423:
1422:
1418:
1415:
1414:
1410:
1407:
1406:
1402:
1399:
1398:
1394:
1391:
1390:
1386:
1383:
1382:
1378:
1375:
1374:
1370:
1367:
1366:
1365:Duro v. Reina
1362:
1359:
1358:
1354:
1351:
1350:
1346:
1343:
1342:
1338:
1335:
1334:
1330:
1327:
1326:
1322:
1319:
1318:
1314:
1311:
1310:
1306:
1303:
1302:
1298:
1295:
1294:
1290:
1287:
1286:
1282:
1279:
1278:
1274:
1271:
1270:
1266:
1263:
1262:
1258:
1255:
1254:
1250:
1247:
1246:
1242:
1239:
1238:
1234:
1231:
1230:
1226:
1223:
1222:
1218:
1215:
1214:
1210:
1207:
1206:
1202:
1199:
1198:
1194:
1191:
1190:
1186:
1183:
1182:
1178:
1175:
1174:
1170:
1167:
1166:
1162:
1159:
1158:
1154:
1151:
1150:
1146:
1145:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1124:
1119:
1117:
1112:
1110:
1105:
1104:
1101:
1095:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1081:
1080:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1071:
1069:
1067:
1063:
1062:
1058:
1050:
1046:
1040:
1037:
1032:
1031:
1024:
1021:
1017:
1012:
1009:
1005:
1000:
997:
994:, 7 June 2010
993:
989:
984:
981:
977:
973:
969:
966:
962:
957:
954:
942:
938:
931:
928:
925:
921:
918:
913:
910:
898:
894:
890:
886:
880:
877:
872:
868:
864:
860:
852:
849:
846:
842:
839:
834:
831:
818:
814:
808:
805:
801:
800:The Atlantic,
797:
792:
789:
776:
772:
766:
763:
759:
752:
749:
744:
737:
734:
729:
723:
718:
717:
708:
705:
701:
697:
693:
690:
685:
683:
681:
679:
675:
666:
663:
655:
644:
641:
637:
634:
630:
627:
623:
620:
616:
613: –
612:
608:
607:Find sources:
601:
597:
591:
590:
585:This article
583:
579:
574:
573:
567:
563:
560:
559:
555:
553:
551:
550:Navajo Nation
547:
543:
529:
527:
523:
521:
520:Alaska Native
517:
512:
509:
504:
502:
498:
493:
491:
490:
484:
481:
477:
473:
465:
463:
461:
457:
452:
450:
442:
440:
438:
430:
428:
425:
421:
418:
417:Bruce Babbitt
414:
410:
409:Ronald Reagan
405:
403:
395:
393:
389:
383:
380:
377:
374:
371:
370:
369:
363:
360:
357:
353:
350:
347:
344:
343:
342:
339:
337:
333:
328:
324:
317:
315:
313:
308:
304:
302:
297:
295:
291:
287:
283:
282:Bruce Babbitt
279:
278:John EchoHawk
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
242:action suit.
240:
236:
229:
227:
225:
221:
216:
212:
210:
209:Meriam Report
205:
198:
190:
188:
184:
181:
177:
173:
168:
161:
159:
155:
153:
148:
142:
139:
134:
132:
128:
124:
120:
116:
112:
108:
104:
100:
96:
93:
89:
88:
83:
82:
77:
76:
71:
70:
60:
56:
53:Case opinions
51:
47:
43:
40:
37:
33:
29:
24:
19:
16:
1704:
1576:Diminishment
1441:
1433:
1427:
1419:
1412:
1411:
1403:
1395:
1387:
1379:
1371:
1363:
1355:
1347:
1339:
1331:
1323:
1315:
1307:
1299:
1291:
1283:
1275:
1267:
1259:
1251:
1243:
1235:
1227:
1219:
1211:
1203:
1195:
1187:
1179:
1171:
1163:
1155:
1147:
1078:
1065:
1048:
1039:
1029:
1023:
1011:
999:
992:The Atlantic
991:
983:
975:
956:
944:. Retrieved
940:
930:
912:
900:. Retrieved
888:
879:
862:
858:
851:
833:
821:. Retrieved
817:the original
807:
799:
791:
779:. Retrieved
775:the original
765:
757:
751:
742:
736:
715:
707:
699:
658:
652:January 2011
649:
639:
632:
625:
618:
606:
594:Please help
589:verification
586:
533:
524:
513:
508:Indian Trust
505:
501:Thomas Hogan
497:Barack Obama
494:
487:
485:
479:
469:
459:
455:
453:
448:
446:
434:
426:
422:
406:
399:
390:
387:
367:
340:
331:
322:
321:
309:
305:
298:
274:Keith Harper
272:, including
245:
244:
233:
217:
213:
200:
185:
172:assimilation
169:
165:
156:
143:
135:
105:) and other
92:class-action
86:
85:
80:
79:
74:
73:
72:(previously
68:
67:
66:
15:
1678:Dawes Rolls
1461:Legislation
946:December 8,
838:BIA website
413:Gale Norton
294:Ken Salazar
286:Gale Norton
180:Dawes Rolls
97:brought by
58:Decision by
1794:Categories
1752:Survivance
1498:Curtis Act
865:(1): 303.
622:newspapers
568:References
495:President
466:Settlement
456:Cobell XXI
204:fee simple
195:See also:
1504:Burke Act
1492:Dawes Act
902:April 18,
897:0190-8286
489:Dawes Act
176:Dawes Act
147:Dawes Act
103:Blackfeet
61:(settled)
1141:Case law
1083:Archived
968:Archived
920:Archived
841:Archived
823:July 11,
781:July 12,
692:Archived
556:See also
548:and the
264:and the
230:The case
1656:Related
1617:Federal
917:doi.gov
871:1429804
636:scholar
284:, then
95:lawsuit
90:) is a
45:Decided
1608:(2008)
1602:(1990)
1596:(1990)
1590:(1990)
1584:(1988)
1578:(1984)
1572:(1978)
1566:(1978)
1560:(1975)
1554:(1971)
1548:(1968)
1542:(1956)
1536:(1953)
1530:(1940)
1524:(1936)
1518:(1934)
1512:(1924)
1506:(1906)
1500:(1898)
1494:(1887)
1488:(1830)
1482:(1819)
1446:(2022)
1438:(2020)
1424:(2013)
1408:(2005)
1400:(2004)
1392:(2001)
1384:(1997)
1376:(1993)
1368:(1990)
1360:(1989)
1352:(1987)
1344:(1986)
1336:(1985)
1328:(1984)
1320:(1982)
1312:(1978)
1304:(1977)
1296:(1976)
1288:(1974)
1280:(1973)
1272:(1968)
1264:(1960)
1256:(1959)
1248:(1955)
1240:(1941)
1232:(1903)
1224:(1896)
1216:(1896)
1208:(1884)
1200:(1883)
1184:(1858)
1176:(1857)
1168:(1832)
1160:(1831)
1152:(1823)
1130:Rights
895:
869:
724:
638:
631:
624:
617:
609:
530:Reform
332:Cobell
327:equity
323:Cobell
125:. The
643:JSTOR
629:books
35:Court
948:2009
904:2024
893:ISSN
867:SSRN
825:2006
783:2006
722:ISBN
615:news
415:and
276:and
84:and
78:and
48:2009
1619:and
1432:and
1132:of
598:by
1796::
1047:,
990:,
974:,
963:,
939:.
887:.
863:42
861:.
798:,
698:,
677:^
552:.
492:.
458:.
296:.
288:,
256:,
252:,
133:.
1122:e
1115:t
1108:v
950:.
906:.
873:.
827:.
785:.
730:.
665:)
659:(
654:)
650:(
640:·
633:·
626:·
619:·
592:.
101:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
