Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
Page Number: 54

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

9 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

The Court today treats these precedents as aging relics
in  need  of  “clarif[ication].”    Ante,  at  19.  But  these  prece-
dents  have  been  clear  enough  for  some  time.  Just  a  few 
Terms ago, the same inquiry was described as “well settled” 
by the unanimous Court in Nebraska v. Parker, 577 U. S. 
481, ___ (2016) (slip op., at 5).  First, the Court explained,
“we start with the statutory text.”  Ibid.  “Under our prece-
dents,” the Court continued, “we also ‘examine all the cir-
cumstances surrounding the opening of a reservation.’ ”  Id., 
at  ___  (slip  op.,  at  6)  (quoting  Hagen,  510  U. S.,  at  412).
Thus,  second  and  third,  we  “look  to  any  unequivocal  evi-
dence of the contemporaneous and subsequent understand-
ing  of  the  status  of  the  reservation  by  members  and  non-
members, as well as the United States and the State.”  577 
U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 6) (internal quotation marks omit-
ted).  These inquiries include, respectively, the “history sur-
rounding the passage of the [relevant] Act” as well as the 
subsequent  “demographic  history”  and  “treatment”  of  the
lands at issue.  Id., at ___, ___ (slip op., at 8, 10). 

Today the Court does not even discuss the governing ap-
proach reiterated throughout these precedents.  The Court 
briefly  recites  the  general  rule  that  disestablishment  re-
quires clear congressional “intent,” ante, at 8, but the Court 
then declines to examine the categories of evidence that our 
precedents demand we consider.  Instead, the Court argues 
at length that allotment alone is not enough to disestablish 
a reservation.  Ante, at 8–12.  Then the Court argues that 
the “many” “serious blows” dealt by Congress to tribal gov-
ernance, and the creation of the new State of Oklahoma, are 
each  insufficient  for  disestablishment.    Ante,  at  13–16. 
Then the Court emphasizes that “historical practices or cur-
rent demographics” do not “by themselves” “suffice” to dis-
establish a reservation.  Ante, at 17–18. 

This  is  a  school  of  red  herrings.    No  one  here  contends 
that  any  individual  congressional  action  or  piece  of  evi-