# Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Menominee Tribe v. United States, 391 U.S. 404 (1968), was a case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the tribal hunting and fishing rights which were retained by treaty were not abrogated by the Menominee Termination Act without a clear and unequivocal statement to that effect by Congress. The Menominee Indian Tribe had entered into a series of treaties with the United States which did not specifically state that they had hunting and fishing rights. In 1961 Congress terminated the tribe's federal recognition, ending the tribe's right to govern itself, federal support of health care and education programs, police and fire protection, and tribal rights to land. In 1963, three members of the tribe were charged with violating Wisconsin's hunting and fishing laws on what had formerly been reservation land for over 100 years. A series of court cases brought the issue to the Supreme Court. The court held that the tribe retained its hunting and fishing rights under the treaties involved. This case has since become recognized as a landmark case in Native American case law. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Stewart
United States Supreme Court
391 U.S. 404
Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States
Certiorari to the United States Court of Claims
No. 187. Argued: January 22 and April 25, 1968 --- Decided: May 27, 1968
The Menominee Tribe of Indians brought this action in the Court of Claims to recover compensation for the loss of their hunting and fishing rights, which the Wisconsin Supreme Court in another proceeding had held had been abrogated by the Menominee Termination Act of 1954. The Termination Act, which did not become fully effective until 1961, provided for the termination of federal supervision over the property and members of the tribe, whereupon state laws were to become applicable to them in the same manner as they applied to others. The same Congress that passed that Act also enacted Public Law 280, which two months after the Termination Act became law was amended to apply specifically to the Menominee Reservation. Public Law 280 granted to certain states, including Wisconsin, general jurisdiction over "Indian country" within their boundaries, but with the proviso that "Nothing in this section... shall deprive any Indian or Indian tribe... of any right, privilege, or immunity afforded under Federal treaty... with respect to hunting, trapping, or fishing or the control, licensing, or regulation thereof." The Court of Claims in light of Public Law 280 held that the Termination Act did not extinguish the tribe's hunting and fishing rights but that these were retained under the Treaty of Wolf River of 1954, whereby the United States had set aside land for the Menominees "for a home, to be held as Indian lands are held." Both petitioner and respondent on oral argument here have urged affirmance of the Court of Claims judgment; the State of Wisconsin, appearing as amicus curiae, has argued for reversal.
Held:
    1. The language in the Treaty of Wolf River "to be held as Indian lands are held" includes the right to fish and to hunt. Pp. 405-406.
    2. The Menominee Tribe's hunting and fishing rights under the Treaty survived the Termination Act of 1954. Pp. 410-413.
       (a) In 1954, when Public Law 280, as amended, took effect, the Menominee Reservation was still "Indian country" within the meaning of that law. P. 411.
       (b) Public Law 280 must be considered in pari materia with the Termination Act and the two Acts read together mean that although federal supervision of the tribe was to cease and all tribal property was to be transferred to new hands, the hunting and fishing rights granted or preserved by the Treaty survived the Termination Act. Pp. 411-413.
       (c) The purpose to abrogate treaty rights of Indians is not to be lightly imputed to Congress. Pp. 412-413.
179 Ct. Cl. 496, 388 F. 2d 998, affirmed.
Charles A. Hobbs reargued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs on the reargument and on the original argument were John W. Cragun, Angelo A. Iadarola, and James R. Modrall III.
Louis F. Claiborne reargued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief on the reargument were Solicitor General Griswold and Assistant Attorney General Martz, and on the original argument Mr. Griswold, Acting Assistant Attorney General Harrison, and Roger P. Marquis.
Bronson C. La Follette, Attorney General of Wisconsin, argued the cause on the reargument for the State of Wisconsin, as amicus curiae. With him on the briefs was William F. Eich, Assistant Attorney General.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed by Albert J. Ahern for the National Congress of American Indians, and by Arthur Lazarus, Jr., for the Association of American Indian Affairs, Inc.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse