Court case

Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip

Acts of 1904, 1907 and 1910 diminished the Rosebud Sioux Reservation, the Court held in 1977, even without the consent the 1868 treaty required.

Citation
430 U.S. 584 (1977)
Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Year
1977
Nations
Sicangu Lakota (Rosebud Sioux Tribe)
Treaty at issue
Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 | acts of 1904, 1907, 1910
Effect on land rights
eroded

What happened

The Rosebud Sioux Reservation in South Dakota was defined by the Act of March 2, 1889. The 1868 treaty that established the reservation required the consent of three fourths of the tribe's adult male members for land cessions.

In 1901 the tribe and the United States reached an agreement for an outright, fixed-sum payment that would have diminished the reservation. Three fourths of the adult male members approved it, but Congress never ratified it. Instead, Congress passed three acts, in 1904, 1907 and 1910. They required the Indians to cede land in certain South Dakota counties to the government for sale to settlers under the homestead and townsite laws. The proceeds were credited to the Indians only as the land sold, or, for some parcels, the land was transferred to South Dakota for school use.

In June 1972 the Rosebud Sioux Tribe sued for a declaration that its reservation boundaries had not been diminished. The district court and the Eighth Circuit ruled against the tribe. On April 4, 1977, the Supreme Court affirmed. Justice Rehnquist wrote that the language and legislative history of the acts showed "clearly" a congressional intent to diminish the reservation.

The Court said it did not directly matter that the acts were unilateral and lacked the consent the treaty required, and that the change in the method of payment was not conclusive. Justice Marshall dissented, joined by Justices Brennan and Stewart.

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. clearly to evidence a congressional intent to diminish the boundaries of the ReservationRosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, 430 U.S. 584 (1977) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  2. that fact does not directly bear on the question whether Congress by these later Acts intended to diminish the Reservation boundariesRosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, 430 U.S. 584 (1977) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  3. the Rosebud Sioux Tribe sued in the United States District Court for the District of South DakotaRosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, 430 U.S. 584 (1977) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)

Research notes. The syllabus describes the 1889 boundaries as defined in an "1889 Treaty" while the opinion cites the Act of March 2, 1889, 25 Stat. 888; the narrative follows the opinion. Only the syllabus and the opening of the opinion were read in full.

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 3

Nations named 2

Decided a dispute over 2

Concerns the instrument 1

Policy era 1

Sources

  1. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/430/584/legal text copy
The record’s fields
Holding
Congress's 1904, 1907 and 1910 acts opening Rosebud lands to settlement showed clear intent to shrink the reservation, despite the absence of treaty-required tribal consent.
Kind
Court case
Confidence
High

Correct this record