Source: http://lawsdocbox.com/US_Government_Resources/76895954-In-the-supreme-court-of-the-united-states.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 19:03:58+00:00

Document:
2 i QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Solem v. Bartlett, this Court articulated a three-part analysis designed to evaluate whether a surplus land act diminished a federal Indian reservation. See 465 U.S. 463, (1984). The Court found that the statutory language used to open the Indian lands, events surrounding the passage of a surplus land Act, and events that occurred after the passage of a surplus land Act are all relevant to determining whether diminishment has occurred. Id. Later, in Hagen v. Utah, this Court explained that the diminishment inquiry requires courts examine all circumstances surrounding the opening of a reservation. 510 U.S. 399, 412 (1994). This Court has also reiterated after Solem that [w]here non-indian settlers flooded into the opened portion of a reservation and the area has long since lost its Indian character,... de facto, if not de jure, diminishment may have occurred. South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux, 522 U.S. 329, 356 (1998). The questions presented for review are: 1. Whether ambiguous evidence concerning the first two Solem factors forecloses any possibility that diminishment could be found on a de facto basis. 2. Whether the original boundaries of the Omaha Indian Reservation were diminished following passage of the Act of August 7, 1882.
3 ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioners are Richard M. Smith, Donna M. Smith, Doug Schrieber, Susan Schrieber, Rodney A. Heise, Thomas J. Welsh, Jay Lake, Julie Lake, Kevin Brehmer, and Ron Brinkman ( Individual Petitioners ); the Village of Pender, Nebraska ( Village Petitioner ); and the State of Nebraska (collectively Petitioners ). The State of Nebraska was Plaintiff- Intervenor in proceedings before the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska and Appellant to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Respondents are Mitch Parker in his official capacity as Chairman of the Omaha Tribal Council; Barry Webster in his official capacity as Vice- Chairman of the Omaha Tribal Council; Amen Sheridan in his official capacity as Treasurer of the Omaha Tribal Council; Rodney Morris in his official capacity as Secretary of the Omaha Tribal Council; Orville Cayou in his official capacity as member of the Omaha Tribal Council; Eleanor Baxter in her official capacity as member of the Omaha Tribal Council; Ansley Griffin in his official capacity as member of the Omaha Tribal Council and as the Omaha Tribe s Director of Liquor Control (the Individual Respondents ); and the United States (collectively, Respondents ). The United States was Defendant- Intervenor in proceedings before the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska and Appellee to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
10 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE From 1882 until 2006, the State of Nebraska consistently, and exclusively, exercised civil and criminal jurisdiction over Pender, Nebraska and its surrounding areas 1 (hereinafter the disputed area ) without contest or objection from the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska (hereinafter Omaha or Tribe ) or the United States. J.A , , 609. Since the early twentieth century, non-indians have comprised over 98% of the disputed area s population and the United States conveyed over 98% of the land in the disputed area to non-indians. J.A. 204, 206, 208, The non-indian residents of the disputed area have never been subjected to the jurisdiction of the Tribe and have developed justifiable expectations accordingly. Before addressing the legal arguments, it is necessary to examine the relevant history of the boundaries at issue in this case. I. The Original Boundaries Of The Tribe s Reservation. Under the Treaty of March 16, 1854 ( 1854 Treaty ), the Omaha ceded to the United States all 1 Specifically, this includes all 50,157 acres of Thurston County, Nebraska, lying west of the now-abandoned right-of-way of the Sioux City and Nebraska Railroad. This includes the Village of Pender itself and the surrounding region west of the railroad right-of-way.
17 9 the railroad right-of-way and platted a townsite to found the Village of Pender. J.A. 208, 357. Lots within the townsite were sold on April 7, J.A. 208, 357. Soon, Pender became the county seat of Thurston County, Nebraska. J.A Between 1885 and 1889, Pender grew to a population of more than 300. J.A Available data from the U.S. Census Bureau for the relevant townships in Thurston and Cuming Counties indicates that, since at least 1900, the non- Indian population west of the railroad right-ofway has ranged from 98.18% to 99.95%. J.A. 208, 366. The following chart shows the U.S. Census Bureau data for the Indian and non-indian populations in the disputed area west of the railroad rightof-way compared to the eastern part of the reservation.
19 IV. 11 United States Treatment Of The Disputed Area. After enactment of the 1882 Act, the United States consistently treated the 50,000+ acres opened for settlement west of the railroad right-of-way as no longer being part of the reservation. In 1884, Indian Agent Wilkinson described the settlers as surrounding the[ ] reservation[ ]. J.A By 1885, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs reported that all lands lying west of the railroad right-of-way had been sold to non-indian settlers. J.A In the Commissioner s opinion, the Winnebagoes would realize a great benefit from legislation substantially similar to the Omahas (act of August 7, 1882). J.A Like the Omahas, the Winnebagoes: [W]ould then have the benefit and be subject to the laws, both civil and criminal, of the State (Nebraska), and have individual title to their lands. As in the case of the Omahas, the unallotted lands remaining within the diminished reserve could be patented to the tribe in common. J.A Consistent with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs report, in 1885, local Agent Wilkinson described the results of the 1882 Act as follows: The Omahas have reduced their reservation by selling 50,000 acres, west of the Sioux City and Omaha Railroad, to actual settlers, and have taken allotments on the remainder. J.A. 350, 496, 1076.
25 17 the boundary lines of such Indian country. 18 U.S.C. 1162; 28 U.S.C In 1969, when the State of Nebraska retroceded a portion of that jurisdiction in the areas of Indian country located in Thurston, County, Nebraska, the State did not define any reservation boundaries in its retrocession. J.A Even though P.L. 280 and Nebraska s retrocession did not define any reservation boundaries, the United States accepted the retrocession on different terms than what Congress originally transferred and the State retroceded. 35 Fed. Reg (1970). 2 VI. Treatment Of The Disputed Area By The Tribe. Before 2006, the Omaha never enforced tribal ordinances west of the railroad right-of-way. J.A The Tribe has never offered foster care, medical, welfare, or child protective services in the disputed area. J.A The Tribe has no office, operates no schools, industries, or businesses in the disputed area and has not conducted any governmental or ceremonial activities west of the railroad-right of-way. J.A. 2 In a few limited modern-day instances, the Nebraska Department of Revenue indicated the Reservation existed as originally surveyed. J.A However, these revenue rulings do not include any historical or legal jurisdictional analysis of the Reservation s boundaries. All of those revenue rulings were also later superseded and rescinded by the Nebraska Department of Revenue prior to this litigation. Neb. Revenue Ruling (Sept. 29, 2005).
27 19 further proceedings to exhaust any remedies in the Omaha Tribal Court. J.A Individual Petitioners filed an action in the Omaha Tribal Court seeking a declaration as to whether Pender, Nebraska lay within the boundaries of the Omaha Indian Reservation and an injunction against any future enforcement of the Ordinance. J.A On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Omaha Tribal Court determined that the original boundaries of the reservation had not been diminished. J.A. 139, 191. Proceedings resumed before the federal district court. J.A The State of Nebraska intervened to retain its longstanding jurisdiction over the geographic area at issue, i.e., the approximately 50,157 acres, including, but not limited to, the Village of Pender, Nebraska. J.A The United States intervened in support of the Tribe. J.A The parties and intervenors filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether the Omaha Indian Reservation was diminished following the 1882 Act such that the disputed area was no longer within its borders. The district court ruled in favor of the Tribe on cross-motions for summary judgment. Pet. App The district court held that ambiguous evidence regarding the first two Solem factors statutory language and legislative history necessarily foreclosed any possibility that diminishment would be found on a de facto basis. Pet. App. 68.
28 20 Petitioners appealed to the Eighth Circuit and that court issued a panel opinion affirming the judgment of the district court. Pet. App The panel determined that the [district] court carefully reviewed the relevant legislative history, contemporary historical context, subsequent congressional and administrative references to the reservation, and demographic trends, and did so in such a fashion that any additional analysis would only be unnecessary surplus. Pet. App. 7. Petitioners were denied rehearing en banc. Pet. App SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The legal issue in this case is whether the disputed area remains part of the Omaha Indian Reservation, despite both the Omaha and the United States having declined to exercise Indian-country jurisdiction over the area since the late nineteenth century. This is not a matter of mere historical curiosity or academic interest. Rather, the Court s decision will significantly impact the future of an entire community and its residents. If this Court upholds the lower courts ruling that the disputed area remains part of the reservation, the practical consequences will be profound for the residents of the disputed area after over one hundred years of justifiable reliance upon Nebraska and local governmental institutions and services.
33 25 The State of Nebraska exercises criminal jurisdiction over the disputed area, J.A , , 319, , 609; Neither Pender nor its residents have ever been subjected to the jurisdiction of the Tribe, J.A ; The Tribe has no office, operates no schools, industries, or businesses in the disputed area and has not conducted any governmental or ceremonial activities there, J.A. 216; The Tribe has no mineral rights or other claims to land in the disputed area, J.A. 216; and Before 2006, the Tribe never enforced tribal ordinances west of the railroad right-of-way. J.A From 1882 until 2006, the State of Nebraska consistently exercised jurisdiction over Pender without any dispute or objection from the Omaha or the United States. J.A , , 319, , 605. This Court has recognized that [t]he longstanding assumption of jurisdiction by the State over an area that is over 90% non-indian, both in population and in land use, may create justifiable expectations. City of Sherrill, N.Y., 544 U.S. at (quoting Rosebud Sioux Tribe, 430 U.S. at ); Hagen, 510 U.S. at 421. The Nebraska residents living in the disputed area have developed justifiable expectations over the past 130 years. The Eighth Circuit s decision alters the status quo by expanding the jurisdiction of the Tribe over the disputed area.
34 26 A. Disputed Area Has No History Of Indian Character. The demographics of the area are undisputed and confirm diminishment of the Omaha Reservation. Prior to the passage of the 1882 Act, the disputed area had not been settled by either Indians or non- Indians. J.A. 583, 657. According to a report submitted by the local Indian agent leading up to passage of the 1882 Act, there are no Indians living on the western portion of the Omaha Reservation. J.A Neither did Congress expect the Indians to select their allotments west of the railroad right-of-way. As Representative Valentine stated while specifically discussing the provision to allow Indians to select allotments west of the railroad right-of-way prior to the lands being sold: They do not care about making selections over on that side of the road at all. J.A Alice Fletcher, who was appointed by the Secretary of the Interior as a special agent to oversee the allotment process, urged the Omahas to select land near the railroad right-of-way. J.A , , 598. Few Omahas accepted Fletcher s advice; most preferred the eastern part of the reservation for its access to water and timber. J.A , , 598. No Indians chose land in the heart of the sale area, reflecting their lack of interest in these lands. J.A In contrast, according to Senator Saunders, settlers were ready to buy the land and put it in cultivation. J.A. 583, 644, The rapid settlement anticipated by Congress quickly materialized.
35 27 In 1884, the Secretary of the Interior reported to Congress that [u]pon opening the lands to settlement the majority thereof was quickly absorbed by settlers. J.A Local Agent Wilkinson confirmed the disputed area was immediately occupied by settlers. J.A One of those early settlers after the 1882 Act, W.E. Peebles, left the town of Oakland, Nebraska, purchased a 160-tract of land west of the railroad right-of-way, and platted the townsite which quickly became the village of Pender. J.A. 208, 357. Lots within the townsite were sold on April 7, J.A. 208, 357. Soon, Pender became the county seat of Thurston County, Nebraska and between 1885 and 1889, Pender grew to a population of more than 300. J.A Available data from the U.S. Census Bureau for the relevant townships in Thurston and Cuming Counties indicates that, since at least 1900, the non- Indian population west of the railroad right-of-way has ranged from 98.18% to 99.95%. J.A. 208, 366. Percentage of non-indian population by decade: West of Railroad 99.73% 98.18% 99.95% 99.16% 99.58% 99.17% ROW East of Railroad 59.47% 75.12% 85.20% 78.95% 42.03% 30.22% ROW J.A. 368.
38 30 lands allotted to Omaha Tribe members west of the Railroad right-of-way had been patented in fee simple; thus, no trust land remained west of the demarcation line. J.A. 206, 360. The combined statistics on demographics and land use are even more compelling than those described in the four cases where this Court found diminishment. See Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 U.S. at (two-thirds of the population was non-indian and more than 90% of the reservation lands were in non-indian lands); Hagen, 510 U.S. at 421 (involved land that was over 90% non-indian both in population and in land use ); Rosebud Sioux Tribe, 430 U.S. at 605 (involved land that was over 90% non-indian both in population and in land use ); DeCoteau, 420 U.S. at 428 (approximately 90% of the population was non-indian and collectively owned approximately 85% of the land); contra Solem, 465 U.S. at 480 (finding no diminishment where the overall population of the land was evenly divided between Indians and non- Indians). This near-total absence of Indian character, combined with the State of Nebraska s consistent assertion of jurisdiction over this land, demonstrates a practical acknowledgment that the Reservation was diminished. Hagen, 510 U.S. at 421; see also City of Sherrill, N.Y., 544 U.S. at 197.
In The Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF NEBRASKA, et al.
Case 5:15-cv-05062-JLV Document 12 Filed 08/25/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 127 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION CURTIS TEMPLE, Plaintiff, Civil Action 15-5062-JLV v.
Treaty of July 31, Stat., 621. Proclaimed Sept. 10, Ratified, April 15, 1856.
Treaty of 1855 July 31, 1855. 11 Stat., 621. Proclaimed Sept. 10, 1856. Ratified, April 15, 1856. Certain lands in Michigan to be withdrawn from sale. For use of the six bands at and near Sault Ste. Marie.
Docket No Neibell, Attorney for Plaintiffs. Yarborough, Commissioner, delivered the opinion of the Commission.
1 Docket No. 356 BEFORE THE INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION PUEBLO OF SANTA CLARA, 1. M., which is located. The Spanish grant. 41 Ind. C1. Comm.
STATE V. ROMERO, 2004-NMCA-012, 135 N.M. 53, 84 P.3d 670 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEL E. ROMERO, Defendant-Appellee.
Case No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT OSAGE NATION, Appellant/Plaintiff, vs.
Case :-sp-0000-rsm Document Filed 0/0/ Page of The Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Plaintiffs, vs.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 V. 
 v.