Hagen v. Utah

What happened

In 1989 Hagen, an Indian, was charged in Utah state court with distributing a controlled substance in the town of Myton. Myton lies within the original boundaries of the Uintah Indian Reservation, on land that was opened to non-Indian settlement in 1905. Hagen argued that the crime occurred in "Indian country," so only federal courts could try him. A state appellate court agreed, relying on the Tenth Circuit's 1985 en banc decision in Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah, which held that the Uintah Reservation was not diminished when it was opened to settlement. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, ruling that Congress had "diminished" the reservation.

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice O'Connor. Under its approach in Solem v. Bartlett, whether a surplus-land act diminished a reservation depends on all the circumstances, including the statutory language used to open the lands. The Court pointed to the Act of May 27, 1902, which provided for allotments to Indians and that "all the unallotted lands within said reservation shall be restored to the public domain." That language showed a congressional purpose to terminate reservation status. The Court held the Uintah Reservation had been diminished, so Myton is not in Indian country and Utah's courts properly exercised criminal jurisdiction.

Justice Blackmun dissented, joined by Justice Souter. He wrote that the Ute Tribe had resisted the allotments, twice sending delegations to Washington. McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) cites Hagen for the point that Congress has sometimes directed that tribal lands be "restored to the public domain."

Good to know. The account of the Tribe's resistance comes from the dissent, not the majority.

Summarized with AI assistance from 4 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error