Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

10 

MCGIRT v. OKLAHOMA 

Opinion of the Court 

867–868.  In  1908,  Congress  relaxed  these  alienation  re-
strictions in some ways, and even allowed the Secretary of
the Interior to waive them.  Act of May 27, 1908, ch. 199, 
§1,  35  Stat.  312.    One  way  or  the  other,  individual  Tribe 
members were eventually free to sell their land to Indians 
and non-Indians alike. 

Missing  in  all  this,  however,  is  a  statute  evincing  any-
thing like the “present and total surrender of all tribal in-
terests” in the affected lands.  Without doubt, in 1832 the 
Creek “cede[d]” their original homelands east of the Missis-
sippi for a reservation promised in what is now Oklahoma.
1832 Treaty, Art. I, 7 Stat. 366.  And in 1866, they “cede[d] 
and convey[ed]” a portion of that reservation to the United 
States.  Treaty With the Creek, Art. III, 14 Stat. 786.  But 
because  there  exists  no  equivalent  law  terminating  what
remained, the Creek Reservation survived allotment. 

In saying this we say nothing new.  For years, States have
sought to suggest that allotments automatically ended res-
ervations, and for years courts have rejected the argument.
Remember,  Congress  has  defined  “Indian  country”  to  in-
clude “all land within the limits of any Indian reservation 
. . . notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, includ-
ing any rights-of-way running through the reservation.”  18 
U. S. C. §1151(a).  So the relevant statute expressly contem-
plates private land ownership within reservation bounda-
ries.  Nor under the statute’s terms does it matter whether 
these individual parcels have passed hands to non-Indians.
To the contrary, this Court has explained repeatedly that
Congress does not disestablish a reservation simply by al-
lowing the  transfer of  individual plots, whether to Native 
Americans or others.  See Mattz, 412 U. S., at 497 (“[A]llot-
ment under the . . . Act is completely consistent with con-
tinued  reservation  status”);  Seymour  v.  Superintendent  of 
Wash.  State  Penitentiary,  368  U. S.  351,  356–358  (1962) 
(holding that allotment act “did no more than open the way 
for  non-Indian  settlers  to  own  land  on  the  reservation”);