Court case

Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife v. Klamath Indian Tribe

The Klamath Tribe's 1901 cession ended its special right to hunt and fish free of Oregon's rules on ceded land, the Court held.

Citation
473 U.S. 753 (1985)
Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Year
1985
Nations
Klamath Tribes
Treaty at issue
Treaty of 1864 with the Klamath and Modoc; Agreement of 1901
Effect on land rights
eroded

What happened

By an 1864 treaty, the Klamath and related tribes ceded their aboriginal title to lands in Oregon to the United States. A reservation was created that secured to the Tribe "the exclusive right of taking fish in the streams and lakes, included in said reservation." No right to hunt or fish outside the reservation was expressly preserved.

A dispute later arose over the reservation's boundaries and the value of land that had been erroneously excluded. In 1901 the Tribe and the United States signed a Cession Agreement, ratified by Congress. The United States agreed to pay the Tribe $537,007.20 for 621,824 acres of reservation land, and the Tribe agreed to "cede, surrender, grant, and convey" all its claim, right, title and interest in that land. The reservation was reduced to about two-thirds of its original size.

Tribal members kept hunting and fishing on the ceded land. In 1982 the Tribe sued Oregon's Department of Fish and Wildlife to stop interference with that hunting and fishing. The lower courts sided with the Tribe.

On July 2, 1985, the Supreme Court reversed. Justice Stevens wrote that the Tribe's exclusive right to hunt and fish on the reservation lands "did not survive as a special right to be free of state regulation" on ceded lands outside the reservation after the 1901 Agreement. The Court said the 1864 treaty language tied the right to the reservation, and nothing in the 1901 Agreement showed an intent to keep special off-reservation rights. Justice Marshall dissented, joined by Justice Brennan.

Summarized with AI assistance from 3 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 exclusive right of taking fish in the streams and lakes, included in said reservationOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife v. Klamath Indian Tribe, 473 U.S. 753 (1985) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  2. did not survive as a special right to be free of state regulation in the ceded lands that were outside the reservationOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife v. Klamath Indian Tribe, 473 U.S. 753 (1985) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  3. the United States agreed to pay the Tribe $537,007.20 for 621,824 acres of reservation landOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife v. Klamath Indian Tribe, 473 U.S. 753 (1985) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)

Research notes. The Court read the 1901 Agreement and the 1864 treaty together; the dissent disagreed. The atlas page lists the treaty and 1901 agreement, which match the opinion.

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:

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

Sources

  1. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/473/753/legal text copy
The record’s fields
Holding
The 1901 cession agreement ended the Tribe's exclusive off-reservation hunting and fishing privileges on ceded lands, leaving them open to state regulation. Marshall and Brennan dissented.
Kind
Court case
Confidence
High

Correct this record