Court case

Northwestern Bands of Shoshone Indians v. United States

The 1863 Treaty of Box Elder did not recognize Shoshone title to the land, so the Court denied compensation for its taking.

Citation
324 U.S. 335 (1945)
Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Year
1945
Nations
Northwestern Bands of Shoshone
Treaty at issue
Treaty of Box Elder (1863)
Effect on land rights
eroded

What happened

The Northwestern Bands of Shoshone Indians sought to recover from the United States damages estimated at fifteen million dollars for the taking of some fifteen million acres of land they said they held by Indian title, which is title based on long occupancy rather than a grant. They said the United States had recognized that title in a treaty made with the bands at Box Elder, Utah Territory, on July 30, 1863.

They sued in the Court of Claims under a special jurisdictional act of Congress of February 28, 1929. The Act allowed claims "arising under or growing out of" the treaties it listed, including the treaty of July 30, 1863.

The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Reed, affirmed the Court of Claims. It held that the 1863 treaty "was not a recognition or acknowledgment by the United States of the Indian title to the lands therein mentioned," so a claim for the taking of those lands was not one arising under the treaty. The Court said recognition of Indian title is not to be implied from the Indians' grant of permission for travel or mining, and that the treaty's use of the word "claim" or the phrase "country claimed" did not acknowledge title. Indian treaties, the Court said, are construed "according to their tenor," and their terms are not varied to avoid alleged injustices.

Four justices disagreed. Justice Roberts thought the judgment should be reversed. Justice Douglas dissented, joined by Justices Frankfurter and Murphy, and Justice Murphy dissented, joined by Justices Frankfurter and Douglas. Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Black, wrote separately about the difficulties of settling such a grievance through a lawsuit.

Good to know. The 'fifteen million' figures describe the Bands' claim, not a court finding.

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. was not a recognition or acknowledgment by the United States of the Indian title to the lands therein mentionedNorthwestern Bands of Shoshone Indians v. United States, 324 U.S. 335 (1945) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  2. Indian treaties are to be construed according to their tenorNorthwestern Bands of Shoshone Indians v. United States, 324 U.S. 335 (1945) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  3. did not constitute acknowledgment by the United States of such titleNorthwestern Bands of Shoshone Indians v. United States, 324 U.S. 335 (1945) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  4. MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS is of the view that the judgment should be reversed.Northwestern Bands of Shoshone Indians v. United States, 324 U.S. 335 (1945) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)

Research notes. The opinion describes the claimed lands only by treaty text; I have not named where they lay. The old text's remarks about Tee-Hit-Ton (1955) and the Indian Claims Commission were removed as unsourced. The 'fifteen million' figures are the opinion's description of the Bands' claim, not a finding. The Jackson concurrence description is brief and from its opening lines.

Who is doing the work

This history belongs to living nations. Start with them:

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 3

Concerns the instrument 1

Policy era 1

Nations named 1

Decided a dispute over 1

Sources

  1. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/324/335/legal text copy
The record’s fields
Holding
The 1863 treaty did not recognize Indian title to the lands claimed, so the claim did not arise under the treaty and was not recoverable under the 1929 jurisdictional act. Illustrates the recognized-title / aboriginal-title divide.
Kind
Court case
Confidence
High

Correct this record