United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians

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

B

The action also cannot be characterized and upheld as merely an exercise of a litigant's power to change the effect of a judgment by agreeing to obligations beyond those required by a particular judgment. This Court has clearly never found that the judicial power is encroached upon because Congress seeks to change the law after a question has been adjudicated. See, e.g., Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 18 How. 421 (1856); Hodges v. Snyder, 261 U.S. 600 (1923).

This is a recognition of the right of every litigant to pay his adversary more than the court says is required if he so chooses. Congress, acting under its spending powers, is, like an individual, entitled to enlarge its obligations after the court has adjudicated a question. The decision in Pope v. United States, 323 U.S. 1 (1944), clearly rests upon this distinction. But here Congress has made no change in the applicable law. It has not provided, as our opinions make clear it could have, that the Sioux should recover for all interest on the value of the Black Hills.

Counsel for respondents in fact stated at oral argument that he could not persuade Congress "to go that far." Congress has not changed the rule of law, it simply directed the judiciary to try again. Congress may not attempt [448 U.S. 432] to shift its legislative responsibilities and satisfy its constituents by discarding final judgments and ordering new trials.

Next Section>>>>