Opinion ID: 160520
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Treaty Claim

Text: 21 Plaintiffs' fourth contention is that individual Choctaw citizens may seek compensation for injury pursuant to a treaty in federal district court. Aplt. Br. at 7. In pertinent part, the 1855 Treaty between the United States, the Choctaw Nation, and the Chickasaw Nation provides: 22 The United States shall protect the Choctaws and Chickasaws from domestic strife, from hostile invasion, and from aggression by other Indians and white persons not subject to their jurisdiction and laws; and for all injuries, resulting from such invasion or aggression, full indemnity is hereby guaranteed to the party or parties injured, out of the treasury of the United States, upon the same principle and according to the same rules upon which white persons are entitled to indemnity for injuries or aggression upon them, committed by Indians. 23 Treaty with the Choctaws and Chickasaws, June 22, 1855, art. 14, 11 Stat. 611, 614 (emphasis added). Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to indemnification under this Article because they suffered injuries, resulting from . . . aggression by BIA personnel, who are not subject to the jurisdiction or laws of the Choctaw Nation. Aplt. Br. at 12. 24 It is well-settled that [t]he very great majority of Indian treaties create tribal, not individual, rights . . . . Hebah v. United States, 428 F.2d 1334, 1337 (Ct. Cl. 1970) (citing Blackfeather v. United States, 190 U.S. 368, 377 (1903)). Even if we proceed under the dubious assumptions that the Treaty conferred individual rights and that jurisdiction was proper in the Eastern District of Oklahoma, the Treaty claim still fails because contrary to Plaintiffs' argument, none of the acts at issue in this case is attributable to BIA personnel. Nor are Plaintiffs entitled to indemnification under Article XIV for the actions of the tribal defendants, who are clearly subject to [Choctaw] jurisdiction and laws. 11 Stat. at 614. Thus, on the facts before us, we reject Plaintiffs' fourth contention on appeal.