Opinion ID: 201444
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Plain and Unambiguous

Text: 36 The Wampanoag Tribe claims that the language of the Settlement Act is not plain and unambiguous and therefore cannot effect an extinguishment of Indian title. Despite the fact that this issue is raised in the section of the Tribe's brief that is dedicated to the alleged unconstitutionality of the Settlement Act, the Tribe cites no constitutional provision to this effect, and indeed there is none. This policy arises in statutory construction instead. 37 It is well established that courts will not infer congressional intent to extinguish Indian claims to aboriginal rights to land absent plain and unambiguous statutory language making such an extinguishment. See County of Oneida, 470 U.S. at 247-48, 105 S.Ct. 1245; United States v. Santa Fe Pac. R. Co., 314 U.S. 339, 346, 62 S.Ct. 248, 86 L.Ed. 260 (1941). As these cases point out, it has been the policy of the federal government from the beginning to respect the Indian right of occupancy, which could only be interfered with or determined by the United States. Id. at 345, 62 S.Ct. 248 (quoting Cramer v. United States, 261 U.S. 219, 227, 43 S.Ct. 342, 67 L.Ed. 622 (1923)). 38 The language of the Act expressly declares that it applies to  any transfer of land ... located anywhere within the State of Rhode Island outside the town of Charlestown from, by, or on behalf of any Indian, Indian nation, or tribe of Indians. 25 U.S.C. § 1712(a)(1) (emphasis added). In addition, the House Report on the Settlement Act explained that it provided not only for the extinguishment of all land claims of the Narragansett Tribe, but also for the extinguishment of all land claims, if any, within the State of Rhode Island, by any other Indian tribes.  H.R.Rep. No. 95-1453, at 5 (emphasis added). While the Wampanoags are correct that Congress thought it unlikely that there were other potential Indian land claims in Rhode Island, Congress could not have been more clear in its intent to extinguish any Indian claims to land involved in any transfer by any Indians qua Indians by this provision. 39 The Wampanoags incorrectly argue that Oneida requires that the location of the land to which claims are extinguished must be denominated in a plain and unambiguous fashion so that the particular disenfranchised Indians are aware that their claims are being extinguished. The statutory language at issue in Oneida was deemed ambiguous not because it failed to identify specific lands or Indians, but because it did not clearly express an intent to extinguish claims. Oneida, 470 U.S. at 247-48, 105 S.Ct. 1245. In contrast, here, the Settlement Act expressly states that Congress does hereby approve any prior land transfers, 25 U.S.C. § 1712(a)(1); that this statutory provision shall be regarded as an extinguishment of any aboriginal title to land, id. § 1712(a)(2); and that all claims against the United States ... shall be regarded as extinguished as of the date of the transfer, Id. § 1712(a)(3).