United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 US 371 (1980), is the case of the United States Supreme Court where the Court ruled that: 1) the enforcement by the Congress laws allowing the Sioux States to sue claims against the United States which had previously been decided not to violate the doctrine of separation of powers; and 2) retrieval of property set aside for tribal use is required compensation, including interest.
Video United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians
Fakta kasus
The Fort Laramie Agreement on April 29, 1868, promised that the Great Sioux Reserves, including the Black Hills, would be "separated for the use and occupation of an absolute and undisturbed Indian." Under the terms of the agreement, the submission of any part of the reservation requires a new agreement to be executed and signed by at least three quarters of all adult Indian men occupying the land. The Sioux right to hunt in some unshakable territory is protected by the Fort Laramie Agreement as well. The Fort Laramie Treaty ended the Powder River War of 1866-1867, a series of military engagements in which the Sioux tribes, led by Red Cloud chiefs, fought to protect the integrity of the previously recognized treaty land of white settlers.
The 1868 treaty brought peace for several years, but in 1874 an exploration expedition under General George A. Custer entered the Black Hills to investigate rumors about gold. "Custer's rosy description of the mineral and timber resources of the Black Hills, and the suitability of land for grazing and cultivation... received widespread circulation, and had the effect of creating an intense popular demand for the 'opening' of the Hills for settlements." Initially the US military sought to repel the unfaithful miners and settlers. But in the end, President Grant, Minister of the Interior, and Secretary of War, "decided that the military should not take further resistance to the Black Hills occupation by miners." This order should be enforced "calmly," and the President's decision is to remain "secret."
As more settlers and gold miners stormed the Black Hills, the Government concluded that the only practical way was to take the land from Sioux, and appoint a commission to negotiate a purchase. Negotiations failed, and the United States was forced to use military force. They are used as a pretext to declare the Sioux Indians "hostile", their failure to obey orders to return from an off-reservation hunting expedition in the middle of winter when travel is not possible. Consequent military expeditions to get rid of Sioux from the Black Hills include an attack on their village on the Little Bighorn River led by General Custer. The attack culminated in the victory of Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse Heads of the 7th Cavalry Regiment now known as Custer's Last Stand.
The victory was short-lived. The Indians who survived the ensuing battle to surrender to the Army were interned in a reservation, and lost their weapons and horses, "leaving them completely dependent to survive on the rations provided them by the Government." In August 1876, Congress passed a bill cutting allocations "made for subsistence" from Sioux, unless they handed the Black Hills to the United States. A commission headed by George Manypenny presented Sioux with a new treaty and they signed, under the threat of hunger. But only a handful of leaders are signed, not the 3/4 majority of all Indian men are ordered as required under the Fort Laramie Agreement.
Maps United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians
The S590 is approved by the Senate in thirty to eight votes, with language implying that the commission can obtain all reservations and relocate Sioux. In the House Committee of Indian Affairs, it was changed to specify that "nothing in this bill can be interpreted or twisted to allow the removal of the Sioux Nation into the Indian Territory." Peace efforts or "attempts to buy Blacks' hills" can still continue. Missourians praised the act because it would make Sioux away from their borders.
However, after the Battle of Public opinion Little Big Horn turned against Sioux and the congress refused to discuss the bill. When asked why, congressman Omar Dwight argued that the congress felt it necessary to "find out if Sioux has captured all our soldiers before we treat them."
S590 went on to die in committees and the congress approved the Indian Appropriations Act 1876 instead. This "Illegally denied the Sioux all further deprivation and the annuity-guaranteed agreement" until they surrendered the Black Hills.
src: sutherlandinstitute.org
20th century litigation of Sioux claim to Black Hills
The Sioux never accepted the legitimacy of forced seizure of their Black Hills reservation. In 1920 the lobbyist for Sioux persuaded Congress to pass a lawsuit against the United States at U S Claims Court. The Sioux petitioned in 1923, but the Claims Court rejected the case in 1942, stating that the Court could not guess whether their compensation under the Treaty of 1877 was achieved by the Manypenny Commission - which served as a basis for the 1877 Act of Congress - adequate. The Sioux (and many other tribes) continue to lobby Congress for a forum for their claims, and in 1946 Congress created an independent federal body, the Indian Claims Commission, to "hear and determine all ethnic complaints" including Sioux's claim.
Sioux lost their first trial before the Indian Claims Commission "due to the failure of their former advisers," but on appeal to the US Claims Court, the Court directed the Commission to take new evidence, conducted in 1958. Then what happened did the Supreme Court call " procedural "- 1958 to 1972 - when the Commission finally voted in favor of Sioux, providing compensation for land grabs, but not attractive. On appeal, the Government does not oppose the Commission's detention that "it has obtained the Black Hills through a series of unfair and dishonorable agreements that have made Sioux entitled to damages." As a result, the Government is only at odds whether Sioux can attract interest for 100 years. The Claims Court ruled that the previous 1942 dismissal of the Sioux Fifth Amendment case was "res judicata", "whether right or wrong," thus denying the opportunity to seek 100-year interest.
The case was returned to the Indian Claims Commission to determine the remaining small issues concerning the value of the government's rights-of-way and offset. Meanwhile, in 1978 the Sioux lobbyist persuaded Congress to pass another law authorizing the Court of Appeal to hear the Sioux case, this time without regard to the res judicata . That means Sioux can reapply the claim as the Fifth Amendment, to collect 100 years of interest. Finally, under the new law of ratification, the Claims Court ruled that Sioux had been mistaken under the Fifth Amendment, and was entitled to a land value in 1877 that took $ 17.1 million, the value of gold miners illegally taking from the calculated land for $ 450,000 and a 100 year interest at 5% per annum which would be an additional $ 88 million.
This holds the Government appealing, and the US Supreme Court has granted a petition for certiorari.
src: www.americanyawp.com
Supreme Court Decision
Judge Blackmun expressed the Court's opinion in which six other judges joined. Justice White agrees, and Justice Rehnquist does not agree.
The first and foremost issue in this case is whether Congress violates the separation of powers by directing the Claims Court to reconsider Sioux's claim, this time regardless of res judicata. The Supreme Court concluded that Congress could indeed rule out res judicata and revive the claim charged against the government, under the constitutional powers granted to "pay off state debt," including " moral debt. "
The second problem is whether Sioux has received compensation only for their land, and the Court confirms a Claims Court ruling that they never had. The court acknowledged the tension between the duties of Congress to serve as trustee for the Indians, and the power to take their land. "Congress can have two hats, but can not wear both at the same time," the opinion said. While reaffirming previous decisions that Congress has "the highest authority over the property of the Indians," the Court concludes that Congress acts correctly only if "make a good faith effort to give India full marks," which here has failed to do. In conclusion, the Supreme Court ordered "only compensation to the State of Sioux, and that obligation, including interest award, must now, finally, be paid."
Dissent
Judge William Rehnquist is the only person who disagrees in this case. Rehnquist felt Congress overrun the separation of powers by disrupting the finalities of court decisions when it "reviewed the earlier decisions of the Art III tribunal, destroyed the content of the verdict, and ordered a new trial in pending cases." Rehnquist also disagreed that the initial Claims Court decision in 1942 wrong. He supports the view that Sioux is getting enough compensation for their land. Rehnquist's disagreement suggests that it is "extremely unfair to judge the historian 'revisionist' or the customs of another era of action taken under the pressure of time more than a century ago."
Response to decision
The Sioux has refused to accept the money, because the acceptance will legally end Sioux's request for the return of the Black Hills. The money is still in the account of the Indian Affairs Bureau with compound interest. On August 24, 2011, the Sioux interest on their money has grown to over 1 billion dollars.
In lieu of receiving payments outlined in court settlements, Sioux leaders created the Black Hills Steering Committee, a political group composed of members from each of the Sioux tribes who united around a common goal of pressing the congress to enact legislation that would rebuild sovereignty Sioux over the Black Hills Territory. Under the leadership of Gerald Clifford, the appointed coordinator for legislative efforts, the Sioux representatives spent two years negotiating the exact requirements of their demands. The final legislative draft written by the Steering Committee calls for the creation of a new reservation within the same territory acquired by the United States in 1877 which was originally the Great Sioux Reservation, and reached an estimated 7.3 million acres. However, Sioux will only receive a direct title of over 1.2 million acres of federal land, because the State of South Dakota and private residents are allowed to retain ownership of their land. The law will also rebuild water and mineral rights to Sioux in the area that has been reallocated and restore tribal jurisdiction. This also includes provisions that guarantee the release of territories under Sioux's control of all federal, local, and state taxes.
The Steering Committee succeeded in bringing this law into congress when Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey signed as a sponsor and introduced it on July 17, 1985. The new Black Hills Bangou Government Act, or "Bradley Bill" as well-known, is firmly opposed by the South Dakota delegation. The bill eventually died in congress without being raised for voting.
Bradley tried to reintroduce the law in 1987, however, internal political divisions among representatives at the Black Hills Steering Committee spread the momentum behind him. A member of the Steering Committee, Red Cloud, proposed that a new legislative effort be led by Phil Stevens, a California businessman who claims Sioux's ancestors, rather than Clifford. Stevens claims that Bradley Bill is insufficient and demanding in addition to the restoration of 1.3 million acres of territory, $ 3.1 billion in compensation and future lease guarantees with an additional 73 million acres included in the original 1868 Agreement with the value of one dollar per acre paid every year. Stevens's proposal earned him widespread support among many of Sioux's representatives; however, others in Clifford's camp were tired and criticized him for being too focused on money rather than the return of land in Sioux. Senator Bradley decided to hold a new bill until a resolution was reached for this internal dispute. Ultimately, Stevens proved unable to secure congressional support behind his alternative proposal, and the momentum behind the initial push behind Bradley Bill was lost.
See also
- List of US Supreme Court cases, volume 448
- The Lakotah Republic
- Land of the Black Hills Claim
Further reading
- Lazarus, Edward. Black Hills/White Justice: The Sioux Nation versus the United States, 1775 to the present. New York: HarperCollins. 1991. Pp. xvii, 486. ISBNÃ, 0-8032-7987-6
- Reviewed in "Other Names for Columbus Day" by Herbert Mitgang, New York Times, February 19, 1992.
References
- United States v. Sioux Nation , 448 U.S. 371, 100 S. Ct. 2716, 65 L. Ed. 2d 844 (1980).
- Clow, Richmond L. "Sioux Nations and Territories of India: The Abolition of Business in 1876." South Dakota History 6 (1976): 470-72.
- US, Congress, WoÃÆ'¼se, Journal. Cong 44th., 1st sess., 1875-1876, pp.Ã, 1050, 1084; U.S., Congress, House of Representatives, Indian Affairs Committee, Report Index of House of Representatives Commission, H. Rept. 674, 44th Cong, 1st sess 1875-1876 (SeriaH712), p. \, St. Republic of Louis. June 1, 1876.
- House Journal, 44 Cong., 1 sess., 1875-1876, p.Ã, 1257; House, Congressional Record, 44 Cong ,, 1 sess., 1875-1876, 4, pt. 5: 4520
- Wilkins, David E. American Indian Sovereignty, and US Supreme Court: The concealment of justice. University of Texas Press, 2010.
External links
"UNITED STATES v. SIOUX NATION OF INDIANS, 448 U.S. 371 (1980)". FindLaw . Diperoleh 2008-06-13 .
Source of the article : Wikipedia
- Reviewed in "Other Names for Columbus Day" by Herbert Mitgang, New York Times, February 19, 1992.
0 Comments