Court case
Shoshone Tribe v. United States
In 1937 the Court held that settling Arapahoes on the Shoshone reservation was a taking for which the Shoshones were owed just compensation.
- Citation
- 299 U.S. 476 (1937)
- Court
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Year
- 1937
- Nations
- Eastern Shoshone (Wind River Reservation)
- Treaty at issue
- Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868 (Shoshone)
- Effect on land rights
- advanced
What happened
By a treaty of July 3, 1868, a reservation was set apart for the Shoshone Indians exclusively. On March 18, 1878, a band of Arapahoes, under military escort, settled on the land, and others did so later.
According to the Supreme Court, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs directed or sanctioned these moves, intending the settlements to be permanent. From then on he treated the two tribes as equal beneficiaries of the reservation, a view that at length found support in Acts of Congress dealing with cessions of land and allotment. The Shoshones protested consistently against the invasion of their rights. In 1927 Congress passed a jurisdictional act letting them sue in the Court of Claims for the taking of an undivided one-half interest in their tribal lands.
The case reached the Supreme Court on both sides' petitions, and on January 4, 1937 the Court reversed the Court of Claims' judgment on how to measure the award. It held that the guardianship of the United States "does not enable the Government to require a tribe" with an exclusive treaty right of occupancy "to share it with another tribe without just compensation."
A taking, the Court said, may be partial and need not involve complete eviction. The government's later actions ratified the original wrongful entry, so damages should be measured as of March 18, 1878. The Shoshones were also entitled to interest or a fair equivalent on top of the land's value.
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.
By treaty of July 3, 1868, a reservation was set apart for the Shoshone Indians exclusively.
Shoshone Tribe of Indians v. United States, 299 U.S. 476 (1937) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)A taking of land may be partial, not involving complete eviction.
Shoshone Tribe of Indians v. United States, 299 U.S. 476 (1937) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)Damages should be measured as of that date.
Shoshone Tribe of Indians v. United States, 299 U.S. 476 (1937) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
Research notes. The syllabus gives the treaty date (July 3, 1868) but does not name the treaty; the atlas page calls it the Fort Bridger Treaty. The syllabus does not state a dollar amount and none is given here. The quoted guardianship phrasing is from the syllabus.
Who is doing the work
This history belongs to living nations. Start with them:
- Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation
- Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming
- Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation
- Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada (Four constituent bands: Battle Mountain Band; Elko Band; South Fork Band; and Wells Band)
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
Concerns the instrument 1
Policy era 1
- Indian New Deal and Reorganization1934suggested
Nations named 1
- Eastern Shoshonesuggested
Sources
- supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/299/476/legal text copy
The record’s fields
- Holding
- Where a treaty recognized the Shoshone's right to the reservation, later government placement of Arapaho there was a compensable taking; damages measured from the 1878 unlawful occupation plus added compensation such as interest.
- Kind
- Court case
- Confidence
- High