Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
Page Number: 74

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

29 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

lacked “good faith.”  Ibid.  In the Court’s telling, the federal
government acquiesced in this extraordinary alleged power 
grab, abdicating its responsibilities over the purported res-
ervation.  And,  all  the  while,  the  state  and  federal  courts 
turned a blind eye.

But we normally presume that government officials exer-
cise their duties in accordance with the law.  Certainly the 
presumption may be strained from time to time in this area, 
but not so much as to justify the Court’s speculations, which
posit  that  government  officials  at  every  level  either  con-
spired  to  violate  the  law  or  uniformly  misunderstood  the 
fundamental  structure  of  their  society  and  government.
Whatever the imperfections of our forebears, neither option
seems tenable.  And it is downright inconceivable that this 
could occur without prompting objections—from anyone, in-
cluding  from  the  Five  Tribes  themselves. 
Indians  fre-
quently asserted their rights during this period.  The cases 
above, for example, involve criminal appeals brought by In-
dians, and Indians raised numerous objections to land graft
in the former Territory.  See Brief for Historians et al. as 
Amici Curiae 28–31.  Yet, according to the extensive record
compiled over several years for this case and a similar case, 
Sharp  v.  Murphy,  post,  p.  ___  (per curiam),  Indians  and 
their counsel did not raise a single objection to state prose-
cutions  on  the  theory  that  the  lands  at  issue  were  still  a 
reservation.  It  stretches  the  imagination  to  suggest  they
just missed it. 

C 

Finally, consider “the subsequent treatment of the area 
in question and the pattern of settlement there.”  Yankton 
Sioux Tribe, 522 U. S., at 344.  This evidence includes the 
“subsequent understanding of the status of the reservation
by members and nonmembers as well as the United States 
and the [relevant] State,” and the “subsequent demographic 
history” of the area.  Parker, 577 U. S., at ___, ___ (slip op.,