Court case
Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians
The Chippewa kept their 1837 Treaty hunting and fishing rights; an 1850 order, the 1855 Treaty and Minnesota statehood did not end them.
- Citation
- 526 U.S. 172 (1999)
- Court
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Year
- 1999
- Nations
- Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe (Anishinaabe) and other Chippewa bands
- Treaty at issue
- Treaty of 1837 (7 Stat. 536); Treaty of 1855
- Effect on land rights
- advanced
What happened
In 1837, several Chippewa Bands ceded land in present-day Minnesota and Wisconsin to the United States. The United States, in turn, guaranteed the Indians certain hunting, fishing and gathering rights on the ceded land "during the pleasure of the President of the United States."
In an 1850 Executive Order, President Taylor ordered the Chippewa's removal from the ceded territory and revoked those usufructuary rights, meaning the rights to use and take resources from the land. The United States ultimately abandoned its removal policy, but its attempts to acquire Chippewa lands continued. An 1855 Treaty set aside lands as reservations for the Mille Lacs Band, but made no mention of whether it abolished rights guaranteed by earlier treaties. Minnesota was admitted to the Union in 1858. In 1990, the Mille Lacs Band and several of its members sued Minnesota and its Department of Natural Resources, asking a court to declare that they retained their rights.
The Supreme Court, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice O'Connor, held that the Chippewa retain those rights. The 1850 Executive Order was ineffective, because the President's power to issue it must stem from an Act of Congress or the Constitution. The Mille Lacs Band did not give up its 1837 rights in the 1855 Treaty. And Minnesota's admission to the Union did not extinguish them: treaty rights are not impliedly terminated at statehood.
The Court said the State's reliance on Ward v. Race Horse (1896) was "misplaced." Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented, joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas.
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.
The Chippewa retain the usufructuary rights guaranteed to them by the 1837 Treaty.
Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172 (1999) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)treaty rights are not impliedly terminated at statehood
Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172 (1999) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)The State's reliance on Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U. S. 504, is misplaced.
Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172 (1999) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)In 1990, the Mille Lacs Band and several members sued Minnesota
Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172 (1999) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
Research notes. The 5-4 split is from the U.S. Reports headnote. The 'usufructuary' gloss in the narrative is mine. The modern co-management statement in the old text was removed as unsourced. The opinion is about the Mille Lacs Band and other Chippewa bands that are parties; I did not review the dissent.
Who is doing the work
This history belongs to living nations. Start with them:
- Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin
- Bay Mills Indian Community
- Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana
- Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan
- Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin
- Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
- Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan
- Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana
Working with these nations
- Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) Nation government Ojibwe treaty rights in ceded territories, natural resource stewardship, manoomin, and a Land Conservancy program… Give on their site Website
- Honor the Earth Native-led Pipeline resistance, sovereignty, energy justice Give on their site Website
- White Earth Land Recovery Project (WELRP) Native-led Recover the original White Earth reservation land base Give on their site Website
- Native Land Conservancy (Massachusetts) Native-led Native-led land conservation Give on their site Website
Native legal and land defense, nationally
- Native American Rights Fund (NARF) Native-led Litigation and legal advocacy for tribal sovereignty, treaty rights, land and resources Give on their site Website
- NDN Collective (LANDBACK Campaign) Native-led LANDBACK campaign (launched 2020; Mount Rushmore closure and return of Black Hills public lands), Indigenous… Give on their site Website
- Indian Land Tenure Foundation (ILTF) Native-led Land recovery and control by tribes and individual Indian landowners Website
- Decolonizing Wealth Project (Indigenous Earth Fund; California Tribal Land Return) Native-led Reparative philanthropy Give on their site Website
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
Nations named 3
- Anishinaabesuggested
- Chippewa (Ojibwe)suggested
- Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwesuggested
Decided a dispute over 2
Concerns the instrument 1
- Treaty of St. Peters (1837) with the Chippewa1837suggested
Policy era 1
- Self-Governance1988suggested
Overruled in effect 1
- Ward v. Race Horse1896suggested
Sources
- supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/526/172/legal text copy
The record’s fields
- Holding
- The 1837 treaty's usufructuary hunting, fishing and gathering rights survived: the 1850 removal order was invalid, the 1855 treaty did not abrogate them, and statehood did not extinguish them. 5-4.
- Kind
- Court case
- Confidence
- High