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.
clearly to evidence a congressional intent to diminish the boundaries of the Reservation
Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, 430 U.S. 584 (1977) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)that fact does not directly bear on the question whether Congress by these later Acts intended to diminish the Reservation boundaries
Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, 430 U.S. 584 (1977) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)the Rosebud Sioux Tribe sued in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota
Rosebud 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.
Who is doing the work
This history belongs to living nations. Start with them:
- Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes
- Northern Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming
- Crow Creek Sioux Tribe
- Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota
- Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana
- Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota
- Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota
- Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska
Working with these nations
- Rosebud Sioux Tribe (Sicangu Oyate) Nation government Pe' Sla (1,942 acres, Nov 30, 2012)
- Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes Nation government Seeking return of about 6,700 acres at Fort Reno
- Right Relationship Boulder (Land Group) Native-led Funds tribal youth camps and gatherings, plant-gathering access, trail content with tribes, pushes for tribal… Give on their site Website
- Owamniyomni Okhodayapi (formerly Friends of the Falls) Native-led Dakota-led restoration and return of care for sacred St. Anthony Falls (Owamniyomni) site in Minneapolis, with… Give on their site Website
- Cheyenne River Youth Project (CRYP) Native-led Youth programs Website
- Siċaŋġu Co (Sicangu Community Development Corporation; Wolakota Buffalo Range) Native-led Sicangu Lakota economic engine incl. Wolakota Buffalo Range, food sovereignty initiative, local foods 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 3
Nations named 2
- Lakotasuggested
- Rosebud Sioux Tribe (Sicangu Oyate)suggested
Decided a dispute over 2
Concerns the instrument 1
Policy era 1
- Self-Determination1970suggested
Sources
- 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