Court case

Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe v. Madore (Mille Lacs County)

In 2025 the Eighth Circuit dismissed the Mille Lacs law-enforcement appeals as moot and vacated the district court's orders, leaving the reservation question open.

Citation
No. 23-1257 (8th Cir. Feb. 12, 2025) (consolidated with Nos. 23-1261, 23-1265)
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Cir.
Year
2025
Nations
Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe (Anishinaabe)
Treaty at issue
Treaties of 1855, 1863 and 1864; Nelson Act of 1889
Effect on land rights
mixed

What happened

In Article 2 of the 1855 Treaty with the Chippewa, the United States set apart nine reservations from the ceded territory for the bands that signed it, as "permanent homes." The lands set apart for the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, a federally recognized tribe, were among them. Whether that reservation was later disestablished, the Eighth Circuit wrote, "has been hotly contested but never resolved in the Band's favor for approximately 150 years."

For years the Band exercised concurrent law enforcement authority under Minnesota law through a cooperative agreement with the county sheriff. After the County revoked that agreement, the County Attorney issued an Opinion and Protocol limiting what Band officers could lawfully do. The Band and two tribal officers sued Mille Lacs County, the County Attorney and the Sheriff in 2017. The district court issued orders on March 4, 2022 and January 10, 2023, and the County defendants appealed.

While the appeal was pending, the Minnesota Legislature amended the statute, effective July 1, 2023, to give the Band unqualified law enforcement jurisdiction over all persons within the 1855 treaty boundaries in Mille Lacs County. On February 12, 2025, the Eighth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Loken, held the appeals moot and remanded with directions to vacate those orders.

Judge Erickson concurred specially. He joined the mootness holding but not Part IV, and wrote that whether the treaties and the Nelson Act disestablished the reservation "remain open to be decided at some future date."

Good to know. The appeals court ruled only that the appeals were moot; it did not decide whether the reservation was disestablished.

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

What the sources say, and how this was checked

Well supported by the sources below.

  1. the appeal is dismissed as moot. The case is remanded to the district court with directions to vacate its ordersMille Lacs Band of Ojibwe v. Madore (Mille Lacs County), Nos. 23-1257, 23-1261, 23-1265 (8th Cir. Feb. 12, 2025)
  2. This issue has been hotly contested but never resolved in the Band’s favor for approximately 150 years.Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe v. Madore (Mille Lacs County), Nos. 23-1257, 23-1261, 23-1265 (8th Cir. Feb. 12, 2025)
  3. setting apart nine reservations from the ceded territory for Chippewa bands that signed the TreatyMille Lacs Band of Ojibwe v. Madore (Mille Lacs County), Nos. 23-1257, 23-1261, 23-1265 (8th Cir. Feb. 12, 2025)
  4. remain open to be decided at some future dateMille Lacs Band of Ojibwe v. Madore (Mille Lacs County), Nos. 23-1257, 23-1261, 23-1265 (8th Cir. Feb. 12, 2025)

Research notes. The Eighth Circuit's holding is about mootness. Its long discussion of the 1855, 1863 and 1864 treaties and the Nelson Act of 1889 (Part IV) is not a holding on disestablishment, and Judge Erickson did not join it; I did not summarize it. The old text's description of the district court rulings as holding the reservation 'never disestablished' is not supported by the passages I read and was removed. Reporter cite 128 F.4th 929 is from the old caution (CourtListener) and was not confirmed. I did not research later history, such as a petition for rehearing or certiorari.

Treaty or agreementShapes from the 1899 federal record: approximate, not legal boundaries.

Who is doing the work

This history belongs to living nations. Start with them:

Working with these nations

Native legal and land defense, nationally

Gifts go straight to each organization; this atlas takes nothing. Listing is not endorsement: how organizations are listed.

Connections

Links marked “suggested” were matched automatically by name or date and have not yet been reviewed by a person.

Doctrine applied 4

Concerns the instrument 3

Nations named 3

Policy era 1

Sources

  1. cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/23-1257/23-1257-2025-02-12.pdflegal text copy
The record’s fields
Holding
Dismissed as moot after Minnesota amended its law, and vacated the district court's 2022-2023 rulings that the reservation was never disestablished. The majority's Part IV said the 1863/1864 treaties and Nelson Act appear to satisfy the diminishment presumption; Judge Erickson did not join Part IV. The status question is left for a future live case.
Kind
Court case
Confidence
High

Correct this record