561:
Although federal policy may preclude the ordinary applicability of a state statute of limitations for this type of action in the absence of a specific congressional enactment to the contrary, the
Catawba Act clearly suffices to reestablish the usual principle regarding the applicability of the state statute of limitations. In striking contrast to the situation in , the Catawba Act represents an explicit redefinition of the relationship between the Federal Government and the Catawbas; an intentional termination of the special federal protection for the Tribe and its members; and a plain statement that state law applies to the Catawbas as to all “other persons or citizens.”
662:
than historical interest. But the demands of justice do not cease simply because a wronged people grow less distinctive, or because the rights of innocent third parties must be taken into account in fashioning a remedy. Today's decision seriously handicaps the
Catawbas' effort to obtain even partial redress for the illegal expropriation of lands twice pledged to them, and it does so by attributing to Congress, in effect, an unarticulated intent to trick the Indians a century after the property changed hands. From any perspective, there is little to be proud of here.
1392:
42:
532:
575:
633:
aboriginal territory, and their claim to the land thus derives from original title as well as from the 18th-century treaties. With respect to original title, at least, the
Nonintercourse Act merely “put in statutory form what was or came to be the accepted rule-that the extinguishment of Indian title required the consent of the United States.”
447:, Congress authorized the division of the Catawba tribe's assets pursuant to the Catawba Division of Assets Act (the "termination act"). The BIA reassured the tribe that termination would not jeopardize the tribe's claim against the state. The termination act provided that all state laws would apply to the tribe as if they were non-Indians.
416:, between the Catawba and the King of England guaranteed 144,000 acres of land to the Catawba in modern-day northern South Carolina. The "Tract of Land of Fifteen Miles square" was the Catawba's sole reservation, having ceded to the British the entirety of the rest of their claim to North and South Carolina in 1760 and 1763.
468:
had not lived up to its obligations (by delaying the purchase for 2.5 years, by spending only $ 2,000 on the new reservation, and buying land for the new reservation from within the old reservation). The tribe sought both possession of the lands and 140 years of trespass damages. The
Catawba were represented by the
619:
question was passed primarily for the benefit of the
Indians, as was the 1959 Division of Assets Act. Absent “clear and plain” language to the contrary, it must be assumed that Congress did not intend to belie its “avowed solicitude” for the Indians with a “backhanded” abrogation or limitation of their rights.
730:
Again on remand, the district court denied certification, arguing that each land-owner's defense of adverse possession would require individual factual determinations. Because Judge Wilson again refused to certify the question for appeal, the
Catawba again sought mandamus, which the Fourth Circuit
560:
Without special federal protection for the Tribe, the state statute of limitations should apply to its claim in this case. For it is well established that federal claims are subject to state statutes of limitations unless there is a federal statute of limitations or a conflict with federal policy.
467:
In 1980, the
Catawba sued the state of South Carolina and 76 public and private land-owning entities, as named representatives of a defendant class estimated at 27,000 persons. The tribe contended that the Treaty of Nation Ford was void because of the federal Nonintercourse Act and because the state
427:, without federal involvement. The Treaty provided that the tribe should receive $ 5,000 worth of land, $ 2,500, and nine annual payments of $ 1,500. In 1842, the state purchased a 630-acre reservation for the tribe, which was still held in trust by the state for the tribe at the time of litigation.
793:
According to
Christie: "The inherently complex nature of a claim such as this as well as the hardships caused by all concerned during its protracted existence vividly demonstrate that litigation is an unfortunate vehicle by which to resolve essentially political Indian land-claim issues and that a
601:
Noting that the
Catawba's claims arose from the federal Constitution, federal treaties, and a federal statute, the dissent argued: "These are federal claims and the statute of limitations is thus a matter of federal law. Where, as here, Congress has not specified a statute of limitations, federal
439:
whereby the state purchased 3,434 acres for the tribe and conveyed the land to the
Department of Interior in trust for the tribe; the agreement did not require the Catawba to renounce their claim against the state. Under the agreement, the tribe also adopted a BIA-approved constitution and received
565:
As for the BIA's assurance, the Court that only meant that the termination act did not terminate the claim, not that the statute of limitations would not begin to run. Because the Court of Appeals had only held that the statute of limitation did not apply, not that it would not bar the claim if it
555:
The Court rejected the Fourth Circuit's interpretation of the termination act, stating: "The canon of construction regarding the resolution of ambiguities in favor of Indians, however, does not permit reliance on ambiguities that do not exist; nor does it permit disregard of the clearly expressed
661:
When an Indian Tribe has been assimilated and dispersed to this extent-and when, as the majority points out, thousands of people now claim interests in the Tribe's ancestral homeland, the Tribe's claim to that land may seem ethereal, and the manner of the Tribe's dispossession may seem of no more
781:
to toll the Catawba's statute of limitation for one year, in order to increase the time to negotiate a settlement. A settlement was negotiated wherein the Catawba's aboriginal title would be extinguished in exchange for $ 50,000,000. Legislation approving the settlement (as is required for any
742:
Thus, the Catawba prepared to file 60,000 separate complaints against individual landowners in the time remaining before October 1992 (the Catawba's interpretation of when the, even tolled, limitations period would run). The complaints were drafted and printed, and if filed, "would have been the
618:
This rule is not simply a method of breaking ties; it reflects an altogether proper reluctance by the judiciary to assume that Congress has chosen further to disadvantage a people whom our Nation long ago reduced to a state of dependency. The rule is particularly appropriate when the statute in
702:
except by inheritance. Thus, the court would look for a continuous ten-year period of possession for each defendant land-owner for the period between July 12, 1962 (the date of termination) and October 28, 1980 (the filing of the complaint). Further, the court rejected the defendant's other
395:
These rulings would have required the Catawbas to file individual lawsuits against the estimated 60,000 landowners in the area. The complaints were prepared and printed, but the parties reached a settlement before the date on which the Catawbas would have been required to file the individual
694:, held 4–2 that the statute of limitations did not bar the tribe's claim, finding that there was a presumption of possession within the 10 year limitations period. In other words, the court held that the Catawba's claim would only be time-barred as to defendants who were able to demonstrate
430:
Between 1900 and 1942, the tribe lobbied the state to resolve the dispute. The tribe also lobbied the federal government; for example, in 1910 a federal Indian agent advised the tribe the federal government would not litigate the tribe's claim on their behalf. In 1943, the tribe, state, and
632:
restrictions on the alienation of Catawba land, and the requirement that the Federal Government approve any transfer of the property at issue in this case did not, and does not, stem solely from any federal statute. The land set aside for the Catawbas in 1760 and 1763 was within the Tribe's
384:, i.e. all the judges on the Circuit rather than a panel of three (although the Circuit wrote only five published opinions). The Fourth Circuit determined that the limitations statute only barred the claim against those defendants that could satisfy the standards of
2478:
623:
The dissent did not find the statute as clear as the majority did. Moreover, the dissent argued that the termination statute undid only the statutory restraint on alienation (the Nonintercourse Act), not the common law restraint on alienation:
710:
On remand, the district court (still Judge Wilson) decided to complete the resolution of the limitations issue before reaching the issue of whether to certify the defendant class. This caused the plaintiffs to apply to the Fourth Circuit for
653:, the Court rejected a suggestion that Indian common-law rights to tribal lands were somehow swallowed up or pre-empted by the Nonintercourse Act; it made clear that the common law still furnishes an independent basis for legal relief.
727:) affirmed in part and reversed in part, and vacated and remanded. Again, the Circuit permitted tacking where the transfer was by operation of law or by will. The U.S. Supreme Court declined certiorari to review this decision.
487:
2341:
1773:
2151:
2441:
1337:
476:
606:
if application of the state limitations period would not frustrate federal policy." In determining whether federal policy would bar the borrowing of the state statute of limitations—as it had in
2544:
2257:
755:
on the theory that the BIA had misrepresented the effect that the termination act would have on tribe's land claim. The Claims Court dismissed this action on both the statute of limitations in the
703:
affirmative defense that the claim was not recorded in South Carolina's Registry of Mesne Conveyances and challenge to the jurisdiction of the court. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant
2032:
1615:
347:
1705:
2504:
2293:
760:
490:
was designated to try the case by Chief Justice Burger. Wilson decided to resolve the merits before reaching the plaintiff's motion to certify the defendant class. Wilson granted
1287:
John C. Christie, Jr., The Continuing Saga of Indian Land Claims: The Catawba Indian Land Claim: A Giant Among Indian Land Claims, 24 Am. Indian Culture & Res. J. 173 (2000).
2329:
1780:
1252:
1202:
1144:
854:
503:
371:
196:
169:
142:
93:
552:, for a majority of six, held that the South Carolina statute of limitations applied to the Catawba's claim, but did not reach the issue of whether it barred the tribe's claim.
2104:
1984:
1658:
1599:
2305:
1960:
1580:
1330:
667:
400:, extinguishing all aboriginal title held by the Catawbas in exchange for $ 50,000,000—$ 32,000,000 paid by the federal government and $ 18,000,000 paid by the state.
2514:
1361:
378:'s statute of limitations applied to the facts of the case. All together, the Fourth Circuit heard oral arguments in the case seven times, six of those times sitting
2316:
2056:
1820:
628:
ven if I agreed with the majority that the removal of restraints on alienation should trigger the application of state limitations periods, the 1959 Act lifted only
2382:
1103:
723:
to show adverse possession, as articulated by the Fourth Circuit—granted summary judgement to many of the landowner-defendants and the Fourth Circuit (still
1936:
1553:
1323:
2346:
2321:
1710:
1381:
582:
would have interpreted the termination act to apply only to the individual Catawbas, not the tribe, and not to undo the common law restraint on alienation.
2499:
1976:
1268:
566:
applied, and the district court had held the claim barred, the Court remanded to the Court of Appeals to pass on that conclusion of the district court.
1690:
2524:
2080:
1642:
645:
against alienation of aboriginal title without the consent of the sovereign was recognized as early as , and it is reflected in the Constitution's
419:
By 1840, nearly all of the Catawba reservation had been leased to non-Indians. After the Revolution, and decades after the passage of the federal
2529:
2466:
1768:
1725:
1480:
849:
556:
intent of Congress." Thus, having concluded that the tribe itself was terminated, the Court held that the statute of limitations should apply:
2362:
2287:
2263:
1833:
1346:
752:
342:
839:
Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina Land Claims Settlement Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-116, 107 Stat 1118 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 941).
1944:
1813:
1572:
2251:
1912:
1680:
1545:
1509:
685:; in September 1987, a mere three weeks after receiving the request, the South Caroline Supreme Court returned the question unanswered.
2519:
2471:
2299:
1369:
46:
512:
with the same result. The Fourth Circuit interpreted the termination act to apply only to the tribal members, not the tribe itself.
2421:
2016:
1880:
1526:
1968:
681:
On remand, the defendants attempted to certify the question of whether the state statute of limitations barred the claim to the
2534:
1806:
520:
940:
Catawba Indian Tribe Division of Assets Act, Pub. L. No. 86-322, 73 Stat. 592 (1959) (codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 931–938).
423:
requiring Congressional consent for conveyances of Indian lands, South Carolina purchased 144,000-acre tract in 1840 with the
2405:
2008:
1715:
1685:
1452:
772:
735:) denied. On the mandamus appeal, the Fourth Circuit declined to resolve the issue of whether the statute of limitations was
397:
2239:
1700:
1458:
2426:
2281:
2120:
1829:
1720:
682:
2509:
2436:
2221:
469:
450:
In 1975, the Catawbas incorporated under South Carolina law as a non-profit. By the time of the lawsuit, the town of
436:
790:. In addition, the settlement act repealed the Catawba termination act. The tribe voted to approve the settlement.
1391:
1856:
1695:
1497:
1375:
657:
The dissent also rejected the suggestion by the majority that the tribe's gradual assimilation weakened its claim:
413:
1607:
2215:
2142:
2000:
1761:
1440:
451:
444:
360:
2367:
2269:
2245:
2072:
1446:
756:
531:
432:
2539:
2416:
2227:
1730:
1227:
1186:
1128:
782:
settlement extinguishing aboriginal title) was passed in August 1993, soon after Congress passed President
409:
208:
188:
161:
121:
424:
132:
2431:
2334:
2209:
2088:
1992:
1928:
1888:
1785:
1751:
1650:
646:
591:
356:
292:
248:
74:
2179:
2096:
1872:
1518:
1256:
1206:
1148:
858:
787:
611:
483:
200:
173:
146:
85:
17:
1864:
2372:
1848:
1489:
1406:
389:
272:
1798:
2411:
2392:
2197:
2185:
2173:
2167:
2134:
1435:
1418:
1412:
695:
642:
420:
385:
328:
715:(an order compelling the district judge to certify the class), which the Fourth Circuit (still
2387:
2112:
2024:
1896:
595:
549:
536:
491:
284:
280:
260:
1756:
1735:
240:
602:
courts generally borrow the most closely analogous limitations period under state law, but
574:
2399:
2128:
2048:
1952:
1920:
743:
largest single filing of separate complaints in the history of the federal court system."
1315:
2456:
2233:
1904:
1294:: Terminating Federal Protection with 'Plain' Statements, 72 Iowa L. Rev. 1117 (1987).
861:
719:) unanimously denied. Thereafter, the district court—after soliciting dozens of
587:
579:
375:
364:
268:
794:
legislative settlement by Congress such as the one ultimately reached is preferable."
2493:
2461:
2446:
2064:
736:
699:
2275:
1430:
783:
2479:
United States Congressional Joint Special Committee on Conditions of Indian Tribes
1306:
A State's Statute of Limitations Found Applicable to an Eastern Tribe's Land Claim
88:
355:, the Court held that federal policy did not preclude the application of a state
2377:
256:
2451:
778:
704:
516:
2203:
2191:
1424:
720:
100:
225:
State statutes of limitations apply to the land claims of terminated tribes
1074:
476 U.S. at 522–23 (footnotes and internal quotation marks omitted).
712:
125:
1251:, 24 Cl. Ct. 24 (1991), aff'd, 982 F.2d 1564 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied,
341:, 476 U.S. 498 (1986), is an important U.S. Supreme Court precedent for
690:
539:
held that the termination act triggered a state statute of limitations.
508:
479:
380:
137:
327:
Treaty of Fort Augusta; 25 U.S.C. §§ 931—938 (termination act);
763:
affirmed in 1993, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari that year.
488:
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
759:
Act and the Claims Court's own statute of limitations in 1991. The
573:
530:
2152:
List of United States Supreme Court cases involving Indian tribes
1183:
1125:
185:
158:
129:
118:
1802:
1319:
1047:
476 U.S. at 518 (Blackmun, J., dissenting) (citations omitted).
477:
United States District Court for the District of South Carolina
41:
688:
Certification having been declined, the Fourth Circuit, again
309:
Stevens, joined by Burger, Brennan, White, Powell, Rehnquist
184:); aff'd in part, rev'd in part, vacated and remanded, 978
2033:
County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State
1616:
County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State
673:: "reat nations, like great men, should keep their word."
348:
County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State
1020:
476 U.S. at 507–08 (footnote and citation omitted).
1269:
Catawaba Indians Tentatively Approve Big Land Settlement
1249:
Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina v. United States
610:—the dissent would have relied on the Indian law
2294:
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
2258:
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
761:
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
203:
972 (1993); mandamus denied after remand sub nom.
176:
906 (1989); mandamus denied after remand sub nom.
2545:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
666:
Finally, the dissent repeated Justice Black's famous
504:
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
372:
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
2105:
City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York
1985:
Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida
1659:
City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York
1600:
Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida
751:
The Catawba also sued the federal government in the
454:
had developed within the former 144,000-acre tract.
2355:
2315:
2306:
Cherokee Nation Truth in Advertising for Native Art
2160:
1961:
Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation
1840:
1744:
1673:
1634:
1591:
1581:
Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation
1564:
1537:
1508:
1479:
1472:
1399:
1360:
1353:
1107:, 362 U.S. 99, 142 (1960) (Black, J., dissenting)).
388:and upheld the trial court's denial of a defendant
321:
313:
305:
300:
229:
219:
153:
113:
108:
80:
70:
60:
53:
34:
2057:Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield
777:In August 1992, Congress enacted legislation by
2383:Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
1304:Samuel Winder, South Carolina v. Catawba—
739:against the non-named defendant class members.
637:In a footnote, the dissent further noted that:
2505:Aboriginal title case law in the United States
1937:United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Co.
1554:United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Co.
1814:
1331:
1065:476 U.S. at 520–21 (citations omitted).
8:
2041:South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc.
1224:In re Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina
1164:In re Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina
1159:
1157:
1122:Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc. v. South Carolina
1104:Fed. Power Comm'n v. Tuscarora Indian Nation
1092:476 U.S. at 528–29 (citation omitted).
338:South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc.
65:South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc.
35:South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc.
1382:Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783
922:476 U.S. at 516 (Blackmun, J., dissenting).
826:
482:themselves from the case. Therefore, Judge
359:to the land claim of a tribe that had been
1977:McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission
1821:
1807:
1799:
1476:
1357:
1338:
1324:
1316:
1219:
1217:
1215:
1178:
1176:
1117:
1115:
1113:
824:
822:
820:
818:
816:
814:
812:
810:
808:
806:
31:
2515:Native American history of South Carolina
1083:476 U.S. at 523 n.10 (citations omitted).
1415:(1790, 1793, 1796, 1799, 1802, and 1834)
1244:
1242:
1240:
523:joined the defendants at oral argument.
506:reversed. The Circuit reheard the case
2330:Federal recognition of Native Hawaiians
1781:Federal recognition of Native Hawaiians
1769:Tribal sovereignty in the United States
989:
987:
985:
948:
946:
802:
412:(1763), which immediately followed the
1624:South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe
1292:South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe
909:
907:
888:
886:
884:
882:
872:
870:
850:South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe
317:Blackmun, joined by Marshall, O'Connor
18:South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe
2264:American Indian Religious Freedom Act
2081:Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho
1834:Native Americans in the United States
1643:Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho
1347:Aboriginal title in the United States
343:aboriginal title in the United States
29:1986 United States Supreme Court case
7:
1945:Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States
1573:Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States
351:(Oneida II) (1985). Distinguishing
2252:Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
1913:Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy
1774:List of federally recognized tribes
1546:Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy
614:. To this end, the dissent noted:
1370:Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions
205:In re Catawba Indian Tribe of S.C.
178:In re Catawba Indian Tribe of S.C.
128:1983), affirmed on rehearing, 740
47:Supreme Court of the United States
25:
2500:United States Supreme Court cases
2422:National Indian Gaming Commission
2017:Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe
1881:New York ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble
1527:New York ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble
864:, 499–500 & n.1 (1986).
1969:Menominee Tribe v. United States
1390:
40:
2525:Legal history of South Carolina
2176:(1790,1793,1796,1799,1802,1834)
1166:, No. 89-2831 (4th Cir. 1990) (
521:United States Solicitor General
180:, No. 89-2831 (4th Cir. 1990) (
2530:1986 in United States case law
2406:In the Courts of the Conqueror
2009:Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez
1453:Indian Land Claims Settlements
773:Indian Land Claims Settlements
1:
2288:Native American Languages Act
1459:Indian Claims Limitations Act
443:In 1959, pursuant to federal
2427:Native American civil rights
2282:Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
2121:Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
1608:Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe
1447:Indian Claims Commission Act
683:South Carolina Supreme Court
2442:Recognition of sacred sites
2437:Native American Rights Fund
2342:Federally recognized tribes
2222:Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act
470:Native American Rights Fund
437:Memorandum of Understanding
2561:
2300:Indian Arts and Crafts Act
1857:Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
1498:Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
1376:Royal Proclamation of 1763
788:omnibus budget legislation
770:
753:United States Claims Court
747:Parallel Claims Court case
515:The Supreme Court granted
414:Royal Proclamation of 1763
370:The Court remanded to the
2520:Economy of South Carolina
2216:Indian Reorganization Act
2143:Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta
2001:United States v. Antelope
1388:
1101:476 U.S. at 529 (quoting
1056:476 U.S. at 520–21.
931:476 U.S. at 502–03.
901:476 U.S. at 500–01.
452:Rock Hill, South Carolina
445:Indian termination policy
326:
234:
224:
39:
2368:Bureau of Indian Affairs
2270:Indian Child Welfare Act
2073:South Dakota v. Bourland
1275:, at 3A (Feb. 21, 1993).
757:Indian Claims Commission
433:Bureau of Indian Affairs
54:Argued December 12, 1985
2417:Long Walk of the Navajo
2347:State recognized tribes
2246:Indian Civil Rights Act
1378:(British North America)
643:federal common-law rule
398:ratified the settlement
345:decided in the wake of
2535:1986 in South Carolina
2432:Native American gaming
2335:Legal status of Hawaii
2210:Indian Citizenship Act
2089:Idaho v. United States
1993:Bryan v. Itasca County
1929:Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock
1889:Standing Bear v. Crook
1786:Legal status of Hawaii
1752:Indigenous land rights
1651:Idaho v. United States
1290:Charles K. Verhoeven,
664:
655:
647:Indian Commerce Clause
635:
621:
583:
563:
540:
410:Treaty of Fort Augusta
396:complaints. Congress
357:statute of limitations
249:William J. Brennan Jr.
2240:Indian Relocation Act
2097:United States v. Lara
1873:Fellows v. Blacksmith
1519:Fellows v. Blacksmith
1372:(1629 New Netherland)
1002:471 U.S. 1134 (1985).
771:Further information:
659:
639:
626:
616:
612:canon of construction
590:, joined by Justices
577:
558:
534:
484:Joseph Putnam Willson
435:(BIA) entered into a
425:Treaty of Nation Ford
374:to determine whether
103:490, 54 U.S.L.W. 4544
1865:Worcester v. Georgia
979:476 U.S. at 500 n.4.
961:476 U.S. at 511 n.2.
99:106 S. Ct. 2039; 90
56:Decided June 2, 1986
2412:Indian reservations
2373:Cherokee Commission
1849:Johnson v. McIntosh
1490:Johnson v. McIntosh
1407:Northwest Ordinance
707:after this ruling.
592:Sandra Day O'Connor
494:to the defendants.
475:All members of the
390:class certification
293:Sandra Day O'Connor
273:Lewis F. Powell Jr.
2510:South Carolina law
2472:Self-determination
2467:Tribal sovereignty
2393:Eagle-bone whistle
2186:Indian Removal Act
2174:Nonintercourse Act
2168:Blood quantum laws
2135:McGirt v. Oklahoma
1441:Reorganization Act
1436:Curtis Act of 1898
1413:Nonintercourse Act
696:adverse possession
677:Subsequent history
584:
541:
440:federal benefits.
421:Nonintercourse Act
386:adverse possession
329:Nonintercourse Act
245:Associate Justices
141:); cert. granted,
2487:
2486:
2388:Eagle feather law
2322:State recognition
2113:Cobell v. Salazar
2025:Solem v. Bartlett
1897:Ex parte Crow Dog
1796:
1795:
1669:
1668:
1468:
1467:
1310:Nat. Resources J.
1230:(4th Cir. 1992) (
1189:(4th Cir. 1992) (
1131:(4th Cir. 1989) (
596:Thurgood Marshall
550:John Paul Stevens
537:John Paul Stevens
492:summary judgement
334:
333:
281:William Rehnquist
261:Thurgood Marshall
211:(4th Cir. 1992) (
195:); cert. denied,
191:(4th Cir. 1992) (
168:); cert. denied,
164:(4th Cir. 1989) (
135:(4th Cir. 1984) (
16:(Redirected from
2552:
2363:Aboriginal title
2180:Civilization Act
2116:(D.C. Cir. 2009)
1823:
1816:
1809:
1800:
1757:Aboriginal title
1477:
1394:
1358:
1340:
1333:
1326:
1317:
1311:
1276:
1266:
1260:
1246:
1235:
1221:
1210:
1200:
1194:
1180:
1171:
1161:
1152:
1142:
1136:
1119:
1108:
1099:
1093:
1090:
1084:
1081:
1075:
1072:
1066:
1063:
1057:
1054:
1048:
1045:
1039:
1038:476 U.S. at 511.
1036:
1030:
1029:476 U.S. at 510.
1027:
1021:
1018:
1012:
1011:476 U.S. at 506.
1009:
1003:
1000:
994:
993:476 U.S. at 505.
991:
980:
977:
971:
970:476 U.S. at 512.
968:
962:
959:
953:
952:476 U.S. at 504.
950:
941:
938:
932:
929:
923:
920:
914:
913:476 U.S. at 502.
911:
902:
899:
893:
892:476 U.S. at 501.
890:
877:
876:476 U.S. at 500.
874:
865:
846:
840:
837:
831:
828:
241:Warren E. Burger
230:Court membership
44:
43:
32:
21:
2560:
2559:
2555:
2554:
2553:
2551:
2550:
2549:
2490:
2489:
2488:
2483:
2400:Hunting license
2351:
2320:
2311:
2228:Nationality Act
2156:
2129:Sharp v. Murphy
2049:Hodel v. Irving
1953:Williams v. Lee
1921:Talton v. Mayes
1836:
1827:
1797:
1792:
1740:
1665:
1635:Rehnquist Court
1630:
1587:
1560:
1538:1890—1950
1533:
1504:
1464:
1395:
1386:
1349:
1344:
1309:
1301:
1299:Further reading
1284:
1279:
1267:
1263:
1259:904 (1993).
1247:
1238:
1222:
1213:
1209:972 (1993).
1201:
1197:
1181:
1174:
1162:
1155:
1151:906 (1989).
1143:
1139:
1120:
1111:
1100:
1096:
1091:
1087:
1082:
1078:
1073:
1069:
1064:
1060:
1055:
1051:
1046:
1042:
1037:
1033:
1028:
1024:
1019:
1015:
1010:
1006:
1001:
997:
992:
983:
978:
974:
969:
965:
960:
956:
951:
944:
939:
935:
930:
926:
921:
917:
912:
905:
900:
896:
891:
880:
875:
868:
847:
843:
838:
834:
830:Christie, 2000.
829:
804:
800:
775:
769:
749:
679:
572:
546:
529:
500:
465:
460:
406:
285:John P. Stevens
283:
271:
259:
157:On remand, 865
149:1134 (1985)
104:
55:
49:
30:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
2558:
2556:
2548:
2547:
2542:
2540:Siouan peoples
2537:
2532:
2527:
2522:
2517:
2512:
2507:
2502:
2492:
2491:
2485:
2484:
2482:
2481:
2476:
2475:
2474:
2464:
2459:
2457:Trail of Tears
2454:
2449:
2444:
2439:
2434:
2429:
2424:
2419:
2414:
2409:
2402:
2397:
2396:
2395:
2385:
2380:
2375:
2370:
2365:
2359:
2357:
2353:
2352:
2350:
2349:
2344:
2339:
2338:
2337:
2326:
2324:
2313:
2312:
2310:
2309:
2303:
2297:
2291:
2285:
2279:
2273:
2267:
2261:
2255:
2249:
2243:
2237:
2234:Public Law 280
2231:
2225:
2219:
2213:
2207:
2201:
2195:
2189:
2183:
2177:
2171:
2170:(1705 onwards)
2164:
2162:
2158:
2157:
2155:
2154:
2148:
2147:
2139:
2125:
2117:
2109:
2101:
2093:
2085:
2077:
2069:
2061:
2053:
2045:
2037:
2029:
2021:
2013:
2005:
1997:
1989:
1981:
1973:
1965:
1957:
1949:
1941:
1933:
1925:
1917:
1909:
1905:Elk v. Wilkins
1901:
1893:
1892:(D. Neb. 1879)
1885:
1877:
1869:
1861:
1853:
1844:
1842:
1838:
1837:
1828:
1826:
1825:
1818:
1811:
1803:
1794:
1793:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1754:
1748:
1746:
1742:
1741:
1739:
1738:
1733:
1728:
1723:
1718:
1713:
1708:
1703:
1698:
1693:
1688:
1683:
1677:
1675:
1671:
1670:
1667:
1666:
1664:
1663:
1655:
1647:
1638:
1636:
1632:
1631:
1629:
1628:
1620:
1612:
1604:
1595:
1593:
1589:
1588:
1586:
1585:
1577:
1568:
1566:
1562:
1561:
1559:
1558:
1550:
1541:
1539:
1535:
1534:
1532:
1531:
1523:
1514:
1512:
1506:
1505:
1503:
1502:
1494:
1485:
1483:
1481:Marshall Court
1474:
1470:
1469:
1466:
1465:
1463:
1462:
1456:
1450:
1444:
1438:
1433:
1428:
1422:
1416:
1410:
1403:
1401:
1397:
1396:
1389:
1387:
1385:
1384:
1379:
1373:
1366:
1364:
1355:
1351:
1350:
1345:
1343:
1342:
1335:
1328:
1320:
1314:
1313:
1300:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1288:
1283:
1280:
1278:
1277:
1273:The Times-News
1261:
1236:
1211:
1195:
1172:
1153:
1137:
1109:
1094:
1085:
1076:
1067:
1058:
1049:
1040:
1031:
1022:
1013:
1004:
995:
981:
972:
963:
954:
942:
933:
924:
915:
903:
894:
878:
866:
841:
832:
801:
799:
796:
768:
765:
748:
745:
678:
675:
588:Harry Blackmun
580:Harry Blackmun
571:
568:
545:
542:
528:
525:
499:
498:Fourth Circuit
496:
464:
463:District Court
461:
459:
456:
405:
402:
376:South Carolina
363:, such as the
332:
331:
324:
323:
319:
318:
315:
311:
310:
307:
303:
302:
298:
297:
296:
295:
269:Harry Blackmun
246:
243:
238:
232:
231:
227:
226:
222:
221:
217:
216:
155:
151:
150:
115:
111:
110:
106:
105:
98:
82:
78:
77:
72:
68:
67:
62:
61:Full case name
58:
57:
51:
50:
45:
37:
36:
28:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2557:
2546:
2543:
2541:
2538:
2536:
2533:
2531:
2528:
2526:
2523:
2521:
2518:
2516:
2513:
2511:
2508:
2506:
2503:
2501:
2498:
2497:
2495:
2480:
2477:
2473:
2470:
2469:
2468:
2465:
2463:
2462:Treaty rights
2460:
2458:
2455:
2453:
2450:
2448:
2447:Seminole Wars
2445:
2443:
2440:
2438:
2435:
2433:
2430:
2428:
2425:
2423:
2420:
2418:
2415:
2413:
2410:
2408:
2407:
2403:
2401:
2398:
2394:
2391:
2390:
2389:
2386:
2384:
2381:
2379:
2376:
2374:
2371:
2369:
2366:
2364:
2361:
2360:
2358:
2354:
2348:
2345:
2343:
2340:
2336:
2333:
2332:
2331:
2328:
2327:
2325:
2323:
2318:
2314:
2307:
2304:
2301:
2298:
2295:
2292:
2289:
2286:
2283:
2280:
2277:
2274:
2271:
2268:
2265:
2262:
2259:
2256:
2253:
2250:
2247:
2244:
2241:
2238:
2235:
2232:
2229:
2226:
2223:
2220:
2217:
2214:
2211:
2208:
2205:
2202:
2199:
2196:
2193:
2190:
2187:
2184:
2181:
2178:
2175:
2172:
2169:
2166:
2165:
2163:
2159:
2153:
2150:
2149:
2145:
2144:
2140:
2137:
2136:
2131:
2130:
2126:
2123:
2122:
2118:
2115:
2114:
2110:
2107:
2106:
2102:
2099:
2098:
2094:
2091:
2090:
2086:
2083:
2082:
2078:
2075:
2074:
2070:
2067:
2066:
2065:Duro v. Reina
2062:
2059:
2058:
2054:
2051:
2050:
2046:
2043:
2042:
2038:
2035:
2034:
2030:
2027:
2026:
2022:
2019:
2018:
2014:
2011:
2010:
2006:
2003:
2002:
1998:
1995:
1994:
1990:
1987:
1986:
1982:
1979:
1978:
1974:
1971:
1970:
1966:
1963:
1962:
1958:
1955:
1954:
1950:
1947:
1946:
1942:
1939:
1938:
1934:
1931:
1930:
1926:
1923:
1922:
1918:
1915:
1914:
1910:
1907:
1906:
1902:
1899:
1898:
1894:
1891:
1890:
1886:
1883:
1882:
1878:
1875:
1874:
1870:
1867:
1866:
1862:
1859:
1858:
1854:
1851:
1850:
1846:
1845:
1843:
1839:
1835:
1831:
1824:
1819:
1817:
1812:
1810:
1805:
1804:
1801:
1787:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1779:
1775:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1767:
1763:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1755:
1753:
1750:
1749:
1747:
1743:
1737:
1734:
1732:
1729:
1727:
1724:
1722:
1719:
1717:
1714:
1712:
1709:
1707:
1704:
1702:
1699:
1697:
1694:
1692:
1689:
1687:
1684:
1682:
1679:
1678:
1676:
1672:
1661:
1660:
1656:
1653:
1652:
1648:
1645:
1644:
1640:
1639:
1637:
1633:
1626:
1625:
1621:
1618:
1617:
1613:
1610:
1609:
1605:
1602:
1601:
1597:
1596:
1594:
1590:
1583:
1582:
1578:
1575:
1574:
1570:
1569:
1567:
1563:
1556:
1555:
1551:
1548:
1547:
1543:
1542:
1540:
1536:
1529:
1528:
1524:
1521:
1520:
1516:
1515:
1513:
1511:
1507:
1500:
1499:
1495:
1492:
1491:
1487:
1486:
1484:
1482:
1478:
1475:
1471:
1460:
1457:
1454:
1451:
1448:
1445:
1442:
1439:
1437:
1434:
1432:
1429:
1426:
1423:
1420:
1417:
1414:
1411:
1408:
1405:
1404:
1402:
1400:United States
1398:
1393:
1383:
1380:
1377:
1374:
1371:
1368:
1367:
1365:
1363:
1359:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1341:
1336:
1334:
1329:
1327:
1322:
1321:
1318:
1307:
1303:
1302:
1298:
1293:
1289:
1286:
1285:
1281:
1274:
1270:
1265:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1245:
1243:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1220:
1218:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1199:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1185:
1179:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1160:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1141:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1127:
1123:
1118:
1116:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1105:
1098:
1095:
1089:
1086:
1080:
1077:
1071:
1068:
1062:
1059:
1053:
1050:
1044:
1041:
1035:
1032:
1026:
1023:
1017:
1014:
1008:
1005:
999:
996:
990:
988:
986:
982:
976:
973:
967:
964:
958:
955:
949:
947:
943:
937:
934:
928:
925:
919:
916:
910:
908:
904:
898:
895:
889:
887:
885:
883:
879:
873:
871:
867:
863:
860:
856:
852:
851:
845:
842:
836:
833:
827:
825:
823:
821:
819:
817:
815:
813:
811:
809:
807:
803:
797:
795:
791:
789:
785:
780:
774:
766:
764:
762:
758:
754:
746:
744:
740:
738:
734:
728:
726:
722:
718:
714:
708:
706:
701:
697:
693:
692:
686:
684:
676:
674:
672:
670:
663:
658:
654:
652:
648:
644:
638:
634:
631:
625:
620:
615:
613:
609:
605:
599:
597:
593:
589:
581:
576:
569:
567:
562:
557:
553:
551:
543:
538:
533:
526:
524:
522:
518:
513:
511:
510:
505:
497:
495:
493:
489:
485:
481:
478:
473:
471:
462:
458:Prior history
457:
455:
453:
448:
446:
441:
438:
434:
428:
426:
422:
417:
415:
411:
403:
401:
399:
393:
391:
387:
383:
382:
377:
373:
368:
366:
365:Catawba tribe
362:
358:
354:
350:
349:
344:
340:
339:
330:
325:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
301:Case opinions
299:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
247:
244:
242:
239:
237:Chief Justice
236:
235:
233:
228:
223:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
139:
134:
131:
127:
123:
120:
116:
112:
107:
102:
96:
95:
90:
87:
83:
79:
76:
73:
69:
66:
63:
59:
52:
48:
38:
33:
27:
19:
2404:
2276:Diminishment
2141:
2133:
2127:
2119:
2111:
2103:
2095:
2087:
2079:
2071:
2063:
2055:
2047:
2040:
2039:
2031:
2023:
2015:
2007:
1999:
1991:
1983:
1975:
1967:
1959:
1951:
1943:
1935:
1927:
1919:
1911:
1903:
1895:
1887:
1879:
1871:
1863:
1855:
1847:
1762:in Australia
1731:Rhode Island
1657:
1649:
1641:
1623:
1622:
1614:
1606:
1598:
1592:Burger Court
1579:
1571:
1565:Warren Court
1552:
1544:
1525:
1517:
1496:
1488:
1431:Diminishment
1362:Colonial era
1305:
1291:
1272:
1264:
1248:
1231:
1223:
1198:
1190:
1167:
1163:
1140:
1132:
1121:
1102:
1097:
1088:
1079:
1070:
1061:
1052:
1043:
1034:
1025:
1016:
1007:
998:
975:
966:
957:
936:
927:
918:
897:
848:
844:
835:
792:
784:Bill Clinton
776:
750:
741:
732:
729:
724:
716:
709:
689:
687:
680:
668:
665:
660:
656:
650:
640:
636:
629:
627:
622:
617:
607:
603:
600:
585:
564:
559:
554:
547:
514:
507:
501:
474:
466:
449:
442:
429:
418:
407:
394:
379:
369:
352:
346:
337:
336:
335:
322:Laws applied
288:
276:
264:
252:
212:
204:
192:
181:
177:
165:
136:
109:Case history
92:
64:
26:
2378:Dawes Rolls
2161:Legislation
1510:Taney Court
1455:(1978–2006)
1419:Removal Act
1312:913 (1987).
1226:, 973 F.2d
649:. . . . In
598:dissented.
257:Byron White
207:, 973 F.2d
2494:Categories
2452:Survivance
2198:Curtis Act
1716:New Mexico
1686:California
1473:Precedents
1282:References
779:voice vote
767:Settlement
721:affidavits
705:certiorari
698:, without
517:certiorari
404:Background
361:terminated
154:Subsequent
71:Docket no.
2204:Burke Act
2192:Dawes Act
1701:Louisiana
1425:Dawes Act
669:Tuscarora
651:Oneida II
630:statutory
608:Oneida II
353:Oneida II
101:L. Ed. 2d
81:Citations
1841:Case law
1726:Oklahoma
1721:New York
1711:Michigan
1674:By state
1354:Statutes
713:mandamus
586:Justice
578:Justice
548:Justice
544:Majority
535:Justice
519:and the
472:(NARF).
306:Majority
126:4th Cir.
2356:Related
2317:Federal
1745:Compare
1736:Vermont
1696:Indiana
1232:en banc
1191:en banc
1168:en banc
1133:en banc
733:en banc
725:en banc
717:en banc
700:tacking
691:en banc
570:Dissent
527:Opinion
509:en banc
486:of the
480:recused
381:en banc
314:Dissent
220:Holding
213:en banc
193:en banc
182:en banc
166:en banc
138:en banc
2308:(2008)
2302:(1990)
2296:(1990)
2290:(1990)
2284:(1988)
2278:(1984)
2272:(1978)
2266:(1978)
2260:(1975)
2254:(1971)
2248:(1968)
2242:(1956)
2236:(1953)
2230:(1940)
2224:(1936)
2218:(1934)
2212:(1924)
2206:(1906)
2200:(1898)
2194:(1887)
2188:(1830)
2182:(1819)
2146:(2022)
2138:(2020)
2124:(2013)
2108:(2005)
2100:(2004)
2092:(2001)
2084:(1997)
2076:(1993)
2068:(1990)
2060:(1989)
2052:(1987)
2044:(1986)
2036:(1985)
2028:(1984)
2020:(1982)
2012:(1978)
2004:(1977)
1996:(1976)
1988:(1974)
1980:(1973)
1972:(1968)
1964:(1960)
1956:(1959)
1948:(1955)
1940:(1941)
1932:(1903)
1924:(1896)
1916:(1896)
1908:(1884)
1900:(1883)
1884:(1858)
1876:(1857)
1868:(1832)
1860:(1831)
1852:(1823)
1830:Rights
1691:Hawaii
1681:Alaska
1662:(2005)
1654:(2001)
1646:(1997)
1627:(1986)
1619:(1985)
1611:(1979)
1603:(1974)
1584:(1960)
1576:(1955)
1557:(1941)
1549:(1896)
1530:(1858)
1522:(1857)
1501:(1831)
1493:(1823)
1461:(1982)
1449:(1946)
1443:(1934)
1427:(1887)
1421:(1830)
1409:(1787)
1124:, 865
853:,
737:tolled
291:
289:·
287:
279:
277:·
275:
267:
265:·
263:
255:
253:·
251:
75:84-782
1706:Maine
1308:, 27
1255:
1205:
1147:
857:
798:Notes
199:
172:
145:
114:Prior
1257:U.S.
1228:1133
1207:U.S.
1187:1334
1184:F.2d
1182:978
1149:U.S.
1129:1444
1126:F.2d
859:U.S.
671:rule
641:The
604:only
594:and
502:The
408:The
209:1133
201:U.S.
189:1334
186:F.2d
174:U.S.
162:1444
159:F.2d
147:U.S.
130:F.2d
122:1291
119:F.2d
117:718
94:more
86:U.S.
84:476
2319:and
2132:and
1832:of
1253:509
1203:507
1145:491
862:498
855:476
786:'s
197:507
170:491
143:471
133:305
89:498
2496::
1271:,
1239:^
1234:).
1214:^
1193:).
1175:^
1170:).
1156:^
1135:).
1112:^
984:^
945:^
906:^
881:^
869:^
805:^
392:.
367:.
215:).
1822:e
1815:t
1808:v
1339:e
1332:t
1325:v
731:(
124:(
97:)
91:(
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.