Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
Page Number: 64

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

19 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

Creeks.  §§11, 14, id., at 866.  The agreement required that 
the deeds for the allotments and town site purchases convey
“all right, title, and interest of the Creek Nation and of all
other [Creek] citizens,” and that the deeds be executed by
the leader of the Creek Nation (the “principal chief ”).  §23, 
id.,  at  867–868.  The  conveyances  were  then  approved  by
the Secretary of the Interior, who in turn “relinquish[ed] to
the grantee . . . all the right, title, and interest of the United
States” in the land.  Id., at 868.  In this way, Congress pro-
vided for the complete termination of the Creek Nation’s in-
terest  in  the  lands,  as  well  as  the  interests  of  individual 
Creek members apart from their personal allotments.  In-
deed,  the  language  Congress  used  in  the  Original  Creek 
Agreement resembles what the Court regards as model dis-
establishment language.  See ante, at 8, 10 (looking for lan-
guage evincing “the present and total surrender of all tribal 
interests  in  the  affected  lands”  (internal  quotation  marks
omitted)).  And, making even more clear its intent to place 
Indian-held land under the same laws as all other property,
Congress subsequently eliminated restrictions on the alien-
ation of allotments, freeing tribe members “to sell their land
to Indians and non-Indians alike.”  Ante, at 10. 

In addition, while the Original Creek Agreement did not 
allot  lands  reserved  for  schools  and  tribal  buildings,  the
Creek  Nation’s  interest  in  those  lands  was  subsequently 
terminated by the Five Tribes Act.  That Act directed the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  take  possession  of—and  sell 
off—“all”  tribal  buildings  and  underlying  lands,  whether 
used for “governmental” or “other tribal purposes.”  §15, 34 
Stat. 143.  The Secretary was also ordered to assume con-
trol of all tribal schools and the underlying property until
the federal or state governments established a public school 
system.  See §10, id., at 140–141. 

These  statutes  evince  a  clear  intent  to  leave  the  Creek 
Nation with no communally held land and no meaningful
governing authority to exercise over the newly distributed