Court case

Seymour v. Superintendent of Washington State Penitentiary

A 1906 act opening Colville land to settlement did not dissolve the reservation, so Washington could not try a tribal member there.

Citation
368 U.S. 351 (1962)
Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Year
1962
Nations
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
Treaty at issue
Executive-order and agreement history
Effect on land rights
advanced

What happened

Paul Seymour was charged with burglary by the State of Washington in Okanogan County. He pleaded guilty to attempted burglary and was sentenced to seven and one-half years in the state penitentiary.

He then asked the Washington Supreme Court for habeas corpus. He said he was an enrolled member of the Colville Tribe and that the crime happened in "Indian country," so only the United States had jurisdiction under federal law. The state court found he was a member of the Colville Tribe. But it denied relief on the ground that the place was no longer an Indian reservation, though it had once been part of the Colville Indian Reservation.

On January 15, 1962, the Supreme Court reversed. Justice Black wrote that "The Colville Indian Reservation is still in existence." The Act of March 22, 1906, which provided for the disposition of surplus lands in the South Half of the diminished reservation, did not dissolve it.

The Court added two points. Even if a non-Indian held the land by a patent in fee, the federal definition of "Indian country" covers "all land within the limits of any Indian reservation ... notwithstanding the issuance of any patent." And it made no difference that the offense happened in a townsite laid out by the federal government under the 1906 Act. The state courts therefore had no jurisdiction to try him.

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 Colville Indian Reservation is still in existenceSeymour v. Superintendent of Washington State Penitentiary, 368 U.S. 351 (1962) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  2. all land within the limits of any Indian reservationSeymour v. Superintendent of Washington State Penitentiary, 368 U.S. 351 (1962) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  3. did not dissolve that Reservation, and it is still in existenceSeymour v. Superintendent of Washington State Penitentiary, 368 U.S. 351 (1962) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)

Research notes. The atlas page calls this the "first of the modern diminishment cases" and lists "executive-order and agreement history" as the treaty; neither is supported by the opinion, which rests on the 1906 Act.

Who is doing the work

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

Policy era 1

Nations named 1

Sources

  1. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/368/351/legal text copy
The record’s fields
Holding
The Colville Reservation still existed despite opening part of it to non-Indian settlement; a burglary on non-Indian land within the borders was in 'Indian country' and outside Washington's criminal jurisdiction. First of the modern diminishment cases.
Kind
Court case
Confidence
High

Correct this record