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

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

15 

Opinion of the Court 

Tribe’s funds, land, and legal liabilities in the event of dis-
solution.  §§11, 27, id., at 141, 148.  Despite these additional
incursions on tribal authority, however, Congress expressly 
recognized the Creek’s “tribal existence and present tribal 
governmen[t]” and “continued [them] in full force and effect 
for all purposes authorized by law.”  §28, id., at 148. 

In the years that followed, Congress continued to adjust 
its arrangements with the Tribe.  For example, in 1908, the 
Legislature required Creek officials to turn over all “tribal 
properties” to the Secretary of the Interior.  Act of May 27, 
1908, §13, 35 Stat. 316.  The next year, Congress sought the 
Creek  National  Council’s  release  of  certain  money  claims 
against the U. S. government.  Act of Mar. 3, 1909, ch. 263, 
35 Stat. 781, 805.  And, further still, Congress offered the 
Creek Nation a one-time opportunity to file suit in the fed-
eral  Court  of  Claims  for  “any  and  all  legal  and  equitable 
claims arising under or growing out of any treaty or agree-
ment between the United States and the Creek Indian Na-
tion.”  Act of May 24, 1924, ch. 181, 43 Stat. 139; see, e.g., 
United  States  v.  Creek  Nation,  295  U. S.  103  (1935).    But 
Congress never withdrew its recognition of the tribal gov-
ernment, and none of its adjustments would have made any 
sense if Congress thought it had already completed that job. 
Indeed, with time, Congress changed course completely. 
Beginning in the 1920s, the federal outlook toward Native 
Americans shifted “away from assimilation policies and to-
ward more tolerance and respect for traditional aspects of 
Indian culture.”  1 Cohen §1.05.  Few in 1900 might have
foreseen such a profound “reversal of attitude” was in the 
making  or  expected  that  “new  protections  for  Indian 
rights,”  including  renewed  “support  for  federally  defined 
tribalism,”  lurked  around  the  corner.    Ibid.;  see  also  M. 
Scherer,  Imperfect  Victories:  The  Legal  Tenacity  of  the 
Omaha Tribe, 1945–1995, pp. 2–4 (1999).  But that is ex-
actly what happened.  Pursuant to this new national policy,