United States v. Creek Nation

Last updated
United States v. Creek Nation
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 8, 1934
Decided April 29, 1935
Full case nameUnited States v. Creek Nation
Citations295 U.S. 103 ( more )
55 S. Ct. 681; 79 L. Ed. 1331
Case history
Prior77 Ct. Cl. 159 (1933)
Holding
Held that the compensation for land taken from the Creek by the United States was the value of the land at the time of the taking, plus interest.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Charles E. Hughes
Associate Justices
Willis Van Devanter  · James C. McReynolds
Louis Brandeis  · George Sutherland
Pierce Butler  · Harlan F. Stone
Owen Roberts  · Benjamin N. Cardozo
Case opinion
MajorityVan Devanter, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Act of May 24, 1924, ch. 181, 43 Stat. 139

United States v. Creek Nation, 295 U.S. 103 (1935), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the compensation for land taken from the Creek Nation by the United States was the value of the land at the time of the taking, plus interest.

Contents

Background

In 1833, the United States government made a treaty with the Muscogee (Creek) Indians, and conveyed a large part of the Indian Territory to the tribe. [1] Unlike most treaties, the Creek obtained the land under fee simple title, rather than the federal government holding the land in trust for the tribe. [2] In 1866 the Creek tribe ceded the western half of the land to the United States and in 1872 the land was surveyed. [3] The survey contained an error, and as a result, 5,575.57 acres of Creek land was turned over to the Sac and Fox tribe. [4]

In 1924, Congress passed a law [5] allowing the Creek Nation to sue the United States for compensation arising out of government misdeeds from a treaty, agreement, or law of the United States. [6] The Creek Nation sued for compensation in the United States Court of Claims. [7]

In the Court of Claims, the United States admitted that the Creek Nation was entitled to compensation, the disagreement was over the way that the damages would be calculated. [8] The United States want the damages to be fixed at the value of the property in 1873, the tribe wanted it to be the value of the land at the time that they filed suit. [9] The Court of Claims ruled in favor of the tribe, setting the value at $30 per acre as the value in 1926. [10]

Supreme Court

Justice Willis Van Devanter, author of the opinion Willis Van Devanter - seated.jpg
Justice Willis Van Devanter, author of the opinion

Justice Willis Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the Court. Although he noted that, unlike most tribes, the Creeks actually owned the land in this case, Van Devanter said that the United States had the right to act as a guardian over the tribe, but that did not authorize the government to take the land. [11] Van Devanter stated that the government's taking of Creek land did not occur in 1873, when the survey was filed, nor had it occurred in 1926 when the Creeks brought suit. [12] Instead, he found that the taking occurred in 1891, when Congress authorized the government to dispose of the land to settlers. [13] The value of the land at that time would need to be determined, and the Creek Nation would be entitled to that amount, with interest at 5% per annum. [14] The decision of the Court of Claims was reversed and the matter remanded for the Court of Claims to determine the proper compensation based on the Supreme Court opinion. [15]

Subsequent developments

The case is thought to have laid the groundwork for later trustee-violation cases, such as United States v. Shoshone Tribe , [16] that cited Creek Nation in support. [17] It was noted that the courts began to transition from a guardianship role to a trustee role, and that the Fifth Amendment protected Indian lands from government seizures. [18]

Related Research Articles

Indian Territory Evolving land area set aside by the United States Government for the relocation of Native Americans

The Indian Territory and the Indian Territories are terms that generally described an evolving land area set aside by the United States Government for the relocation of Native Americans who held aboriginal title to their land as a sovereign independent state. In general, the tribes ceded land they occupied in exchange for land grants in 1803. The concept of an Indian Territory was an outcome of the US federal government's 18th- and 19th-century policy of Indian removal. After the American Civil War (1861–1865), the policy of the US government was one of assimilation.

Trail of Tears Forced relocation of the southeastern Native American tribes

The Trail of Tears was part of the Indian removal, an ethnic cleansing and series of forced displacements of approximately 60,000 Native Americans of the Five Civilized Tribes between 1830 and 1850 by the United States government. Removal for this event was gradual, occurring over a period of nearly a decade. Members of the so-called Five Civilized Tribes—the Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw nations —were forcibly removed from their ancestral homelands in the Southeastern United States to areas to the west of the Mississippi River that had been designated Indian Territory. The forced relocations were carried out by government authorities after the passage of the Indian Removal Act in 1830. The Cherokee removal in 1838 was brought on by the discovery of gold near Dahlonega, Georgia, in 1828, resulting in the Georgia Gold Rush.

The Shoshone or Shoshoni are a Native American tribe with four large cultural/linguistic divisions:

Indian reservation Land managed by Native American nations under the US Bureau of Indian Affairs

An Indian reservation is an area of land held and governed by a federally recognised Native American tribal nation which government is accountable to the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs and not to the state government in which it is located. Some of the country's 574 federally recognized tribes govern more than one of the 326 Indian reservations in the United States, while some share reservations, and others have no reservation at all. Historical piecemeal land allocations under the Dawes Act facilitated sales to non–Native Americans, resulting in some reservations becoming severely fragmented, with pieces of tribal and privately held land being treated as separate enclaves. This jumble of private and public real estate creates significant administrative, political and legal difficulties.

Mary Dann and Carrie Dann Native American Western Shoshone activists

The Dann Sisters, Mary Dann (1923–2005) and Carrie Dann (1932–2021), were Western Shoshone elders who were spiritual leaders, ranchers, and cultural, spiritual rights and land rights activists. They challenged the federal government over uses of their tribe's traditional land, in a case that reached the United States Supreme Court as U.S. v. Dann.

Western Shoshone

The Western Shoshone comprise several Shoshone tribes that are indigenous to the Great Basin and have lands identified in the Treaty of Ruby Valley 1863. They resided in Idaho, Nevada, California, and Utah. The tribes are very closely related culturally to the Paiute, Goshute, Bannock, Ute, and Timbisha tribes.

Treaty of Fort Laramie (1851) Treaty on territorial claims of Native Americans

The Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851 was signed on September 17, 1851 between United States treaty commissioners and representatives of the Cheyenne, Sioux, Arapaho, Crow, Assiniboine, Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nations. The treaty was an agreement between nine more-or-less independent parties. The treaty set forth traditional territorial claims of the tribes as among themselves.

United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that: 1) the enactment by Congress of a law allowing the Sioux Nation to pursue a claim against the United States that had been previously adjudicated did not violate the doctrine of separation of powers; and 2) the taking of property that was set aside for the use of the tribe required just compensation, including interest. The Sioux have not accepted the compensation awarded to them by this case, valued at over $1 billion as of 2011.

The Treaty of Ruby Valley was a treaty signed with the Western Shoshone in 1863, giving certain rights to the United States in the Nevada Territory. The Western Shoshone did not cede land under this treaty but agreed to allow the US the "right to traverse the area, maintain existing telegraph and stage lines, construct one railroad and engage in specified economic activities. The agreement allows the U.S. president to designate reservations, but does not tie this to land cessions."

The Indian Claims Commission was a judicial relations arbiter between the United States federal government and Native American tribes. It was established under the Indian Claims Act of 1946 by the United States Congress to hear any longstanding claims of Indian tribes against the United States. It took until the late 1970s to complete most of them, with the last case finished in the early 21st century.

United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians of the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming, 304 U.S. 111 (1938), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that mineral rights on a reservation belonged to the tribe, not the federal government.

United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1913), was a United States Supreme Court case deciding whether the federal government's law prohibiting liquor on the land of Santa Clara Pueblo impermissibly infringed on the State of New Mexico's police power under the equal footing doctrine. In a unanimous decision, the Court upheld the law and Congress' ability to recognize and regulate Tribes. Citing broad Congressional authority in Kagama, recognition of Tribes subject to the guardianship of the federal government falls on Congress, not the Court, as long as recognition is not "arbitrary" and actually reflects "distinctly Indian communities."

Black Hills land claim

The Black Hills land claim is an ongoing land dispute between Native Americans from the Sioux Nation and the United States government. The land in question was pledged to the Sioux Nation in the Fort Laramie Treaty of April 29, 1868, but a few years later illegally seized and the treaty nullified without the tribe's consent in the Indian Appropriations Bill of 1876. That bill "denied the Sioux all further appropriation and treaty-guaranteed annuities" until they gave up the Black Hills. A Supreme Court case was ruled in favor of the Sioux in 1980. The Sioux have outstanding issues with the ruling and have not collected the funds. As of 2011, the award was worth over $1 billion.

Menominee Tribe v. United States, 391 U.S. 404 (1968), is a case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Menominee Indian Tribe kept their historical hunting and fishing rights even after the federal government ceased to recognize the tribe. It was a landmark decision in Native American case law.

Aboriginal title in the United States First country to recognize aboriginal title

The United States was the first jurisdiction to acknowledge the common law doctrine of aboriginal title. Native American tribes and nations establish aboriginal title by actual, continuous, and exclusive use and occupancy for a "long time." Individuals may also establish aboriginal title, if their ancestors held title as individuals. Unlike other jurisdictions, the content of aboriginal title is not limited to historical or traditional land uses. Aboriginal title may not be alienated, except to the federal government or with the approval of Congress. Aboriginal title is distinct from the lands Native Americans own in fee simple and occupy under federal trust.

Fellows v. Blacksmith, 60 U.S. 366 (1857), is a United States Supreme Court decision involving Native American law. John Blacksmith, a Tonawanda Seneca, sued agents of the Ogden Land Company for common law claims of trespass, assault, and battery after he was forcibly evicted from his sawmill by the Company's agents. The Court affirmed a judgement in Blacksmith's favor, notwithstanding the fact that the Seneca had executed an Indian removal treaty and the Company held the exclusive right to purchase to the land by virtue of an interstate compact ratified by Congress.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to United States federal Indian law and policy:

United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the United States is accountable in money damages for alleged breaches of trust in connection with its management of forest resources on allotted lands of the Quinault Reservation.

The Box Elder Treaty is an agreement between the Northwestern Shoshone and the United States government, signed on July 30, 1863. It was adopted after a period of conflict which included the Bear River Massacre on January 29, 1863. The treaty had little effect until 1968, when the United States compensated the Northwestern band for their land claim at a rate of about 50¢ per acre.

United States v. Ramsey, 271 U.S. 467 (1926), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the government had the authority to prosecute crimes against Native Americans (Indians) on reservation land that was still designated Indian Country by federal law. The Osage Indian Tribe held mineral rights that were worth millions of dollars. A white rancher, William K. Hale, devised a plot to kill tribal members to allow his nephew, who was married to a tribal member, to inherit the mineral rights. The tribe requested the assistance of the federal government, which sent Bureau of Investigation agents to solve the murders. Hale and several others were arrested and tried for the murders, but they claimed that the federal government did not have jurisdiction. The district court quashed the indictments, but on appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Osage lands were Indian Country and that the federal government therefore had jurisdiction. This put an end to the Osage Indian murders.

References

The citations in this article are written in Bluebook style. Please see the talk page for more information.

  1. ↑ United States v. Creek Nation, 295 U.S. 103, 105 (1935); Treaties with American Indians: An Encyclopedia of Rights, Conflicts, and Sovereignty 681 (Donald L. Fixico ed. 2007).
  2. ↑ Creek Nation, 295 U.S. at 105; Fixico, at 681.
  3. ↑ Creek Nation, 295 U.S. at 106; Fixico, at 681.
  4. ↑ Creek Nation, 295 U.S. at 106; Fixico, at 681.
  5. ↑ Act of May 24, 1924, ch. 181, 43  Stat.   139.
  6. ↑ Creek Nation, 295 U.S. at 105.
  7. ↑ Creek Nation, 295 U.S. at 105.
  8. ↑ Creek Nation, 295 U.S. at 107-08.
  9. ↑ Creek Nation, 295 U.S. at 107; Fixico, at 681.
  10. ↑ Creek Nation, 295 U.S. at 108.
  11. ↑ Creek Nation, 295 U.S. at 109; The Encyclopedia of Native American Legal Tradition 349 (Bruce Elliott Johansen ed. 1998); Rosalind Kidd, Trustees on Trial: Recovering the Stolen Wages 40 (2006).
  12. ↑ Creek Nation, 295 U.S. at 111.
  13. ↑ Creek Nation, 295 U.S. at 111; Kidd, at 40.
  14. ↑ Creek Nation, 295 U.S. at 112; Kidd, at 40.
  15. ↑ Creek Nation, 295 U.S. at 112.
  16. ↑ United States v. Shoshone Tribe , 304 U.S. 111 (1938).
  17. ↑ Johansen, at 354.
  18. ↑ American Indian Policy in the Twentieth Century 46 and 46 n.18 (Vine Deloria ed. 1992).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.