Opinion ID: 173328
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Post-enactment History

Text: The final factor used to determine Congressional intent to disestablish is subsequent events. Actions by Congress, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and local authorities with regard to the unallotted open lands, particularly in the years immediately following the opening, ha[ve] some evidentiary value. Solem, 465 U.S. at 471, 104 S.Ct. 1161. Express recognition of the continued existence of specific reservations by Congress in subsequent statutes, of course, supports the continued existence of a reservation. See e.g., Seymour, 368 U.S. at 356, 82 S.Ct. 424 (citing statues enacted 50 years after allotment); Mattz, 412 U.S. at 505, 93 S.Ct. 2245. In contrast, a state's unquestioned exertion of jurisdiction over an area and a predominantly non-Indian population and land use supports a conclusion of reservation disestablishment. Rosebud Sioux, 430 U.S. at 604-05, 97 S.Ct. 1361 (The longstanding assumption of jurisdiction by the State over an area that is over 90% non-Indian, both in population and in land use ... demonstrates the parties' understanding of the meaning of the Act.). The Court has also explicitly focused on population demographics, noting that [w]here non-Indian settlers flooded into the opened portion of a reservation and the area has long since lost its Indian character, we have acknowledged that de facto, if not de jure, diminishment may have occurred. Solem, 465 U.S. at 471, 104 S.Ct. 1161 (acknowledging that this was an unorthodox and potentially unreliable method of statutory interpretation, 465 U.S. at 472 n. 13, 104 S.Ct. 1161, but admitting a desire that the result be in some general conformance with the modern day balance of the area demographics, id. at 472 n. 12, 104 S.Ct. 1161). The uncontested facts support disestablishment under this prong of the Solem test. After enactment, federal officials responsible for the Osage lands repeatedly referred to the area as a former reservation under state jurisdiction. For example, an annual report from the Superintendent to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs notes that his office has experienced no difficulty maintaining order.... This duty, of course, falls to the County and State Officials. 2 Aplt.App. at 259 (1916 report); see also 2 Aplt.App. at 263 (1919 report) (same); 2 Aplt.App. at 268 (1920 report) (Osage County, formerly Osage Indian Reservation, is organized under the constitution of the State of Oklahoma and the duty of maintaining order and enforcing the law is primarily in the hands of the County officials.); 2 Aplt.App. at 272 (1921 report) (same); 2 Aplt.App. at 276 (1922 report) (same). Such `jurisdictional history' ... demonstrates a practical acknowledgment that the Reservation was diminished. Hagen, 510 U.S. at 421, 114 S.Ct. 958. Compare Solem, 465 U.S. at 480, 104 S.Ct. 1161 (not finding diminishment where tribal authorities and Bureau of Indian Affairs personnel took primary responsibility for policing ... the opened lands during the years following [the opening in] 1908) with Hagen, 510 U.S. at 421, 114 S.Ct. 958 (finding diminishment where [t]he State of Utah exercised jurisdiction over the opened lands from the time the reservation was opened). In addition, uncontested population demographics demonstrate a dramatic shift in the population of Osage County immediately following the passage of the Osage Allotment Act. From the 1907 Special Census following the founding of Oklahoma to the 1910 Census, Osage County's population grew by a third. Glimpse Aff., ¶ 9 (2 Aplt.App. at 307-08); 2 Aplt.App. at 319-29 (census data for 1907, 1910, 1920, and 1930). By 1910, Osage Indians represented roughly six percent of the Osage County population. Glimpse Aff., ¶ 9 (2 Aplt. App. at 307-08). From 1910 to 1920, the county's population grew by 82%, but the Indian population in the county (not limited to Osage Indians) dropped to roughly 3 percent. Glimpse Aff., ¶ 10 (2 Aplt.App. at 308). As of the 2000 Census, Osage County was 84% non-Indian, Osage Indians accounting for 3.5% of the county's population. Glimpse Aff., ¶ 14 (2 Aplt.App. at 309); 2 Aplt.App. at 331 (2000 population demographics map for Osage County). Land ownership also dramatically shifted from tribal members to nonmembers through certificates of competency. By 1957, 1.1 million of the 1.4 million-acre county was alienated from trust/restricted status, Baird at 83 (2 Aplt.App. at 239), and as of 1972, just 231,070 acres remained in restricted ownership. 1 Aplt.App. at 89. As of 2008, the United States holds about 0.04% of the total land in Osage County in trust for the Osage Nation. Harwell Aff., ¶¶ 3-6 (2 Aplt.App. at 291-92). Like in Hagen, we think [t]his `jurisdictional history,' as well as the current population situation in [Osage County], demonstrates a practical acknowledgment that the Reservation was diminished. Hagen, 510 U.S. at 421, 114 S.Ct. 958. We conclude that the Osage reservation has been disestablished by Congress. [1] As a result, we need not reach whether tribal members who reside and earn income on fee lands located within the geographic boundaries of a reservation are exempt from state income tax. We also need not address the district court's application of laches to this case, although we note that the Nation concedes that Oklahoma has had a long-standing practice of asserting jurisdiction in Osage County. 2 Aplt.App. at 356. [T]he longstanding assumption of jurisdiction by the State over an area that is [predominantly] non-Indian, both in population and in land use, may create justifiable expectations that merit heavy weight. City of Sherrill, 544 U.S. at 215-16, 125 S.Ct. 1478 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (applying laches, acquiescence, and impossibility to preclude the Oneida Indian Nation's requested relief). AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw as attorney filed by Kathryn L. Bass is GRANTED.