Court Opinion

ID: 9794448
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:05:48.465301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:13:44.065375
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE ANGSTMAN:
(dissenting).
Upon further study of this case I am of the view that the opinion as written is erroneous. It holds that all lands within the boundaries of the Indian reservation are “Indian country” within sections 1151, 1153 and 3242, Title 18 U. S. C. A., even though the Indian title may have been extinguished.
In treating of such lands, section 4, part Second of the Enabling Act provides: “* * * and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain' subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the congress of the United States”.
It has long been the rule that after the Indian title is extinguished jurisdiction of the United States over the land ceases. United States v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whisky, 93 U. S. 188, 23 L. Ed. 846; Bates v. Clark, 95 U. S. 204, 24 L. Ed. 471; Ex Parte Crow Dog, 109 U. S. 556, 3 S. Ct. 396, 27 L. Ed. *201030; Clairmont v. United States, 225 U. S. 551, 56 L. Ed. 1201, 32 S. Ct. 787; Dick v. United States, 208 U. S. 340, 28 S. Ct. 399, 52 L. Ed. 520.
The United States having lost jurisdiction over such lands cannot regain it by amending the statute defining “Indian country” if such were its purpose in enacting section 1151, supra, particularly as to lands over wbicb the Indian title had been extinguished prior to such amendment. The only way in which the Federal Government could be reinvested with jurisdiction would be by Act of the state, as illustrated by the case of Kills Plenty v. United States, 8 Cir., 133 F. (2d) 292.
I think the opinion should be rewritten accordingly or that the motion for rehearing should be granted. "Whether any of the other points raised by appellant are meritorious, I express no opinion, since they are not treated in the majority opinion.
Rehearing denied March 30, 1951.