United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians

No. 79-639. Argued March 24, 1980. Decided June 30, 1980. 448 U.S. 371.

E

The aforementioned findings fully support the Court of Claims' conclusion that the 1877 Act appropriated the Black Hills "in circumstances which involved an implied undertaking by [the United States] to make just compensation to the tribe."{32} United States v. Creek Nation, 295 U.S. at 111. [448 U.S. 422] We make only two additional observations about this case.

First, dating at least from the decision in Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas R. Co., 135 U.S. 641, 657 (1890), this Court has recognized that Indian lands, to which a tribe holds recognized title,

"are held subject to the authority of the general government to take them for such objects as are germane to the execution of the powers granted to it; provided only that they are not taken without just compensation being made to the owner."

In the same decision, the Court emphasized that the owner of such lands "is entitled to reasonable, certain and adequate provision for obtaining compensation before his occupancy is disturbed" Id. at 659.

The Court of Claims gave effect to this principle when it held that the Government's uncertain and indefinite obligation to provide the Sioux with rations until they became self-sufficient did not constitute adequate consideration for the Black Hills.

Second, it seems readily apparent to us that the obligation to provide rations to the Sioux was undertaken in order to ensure them a means of surviving their transition from the nomadic life of the hunt to the agrarian lifestyle. Congress had chosen for them. Those who have studied the Government's reservation policy during this period of our Nation's history agree. See n. 11, supra. It is important to recognize [448 U.S. 423] that the 1877 Act, in addition to removing the Black Hills from the Great Sioux Reservation, also ceded the Sioux' hunting rights in a vast tract of land extending beyond the boundaries of that reservation. See n.14, supra.

Under such circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that Congress' undertaking of an obligation to provide rations for the Sioux was a quid pro quo for depriving them of their chosen way of life, and was not intended to compensate them for the taking of the Black Hills.{33}

Next Section>>>>