Court case

Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States

In 1955 the Court held that Alaska Natives' unrecognized land occupancy could be taken without Fifth Amendment compensation.

Citation
348 U.S. 272 (1955)
Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Year
1955
Nations
Tlingit (Tee-Hit-Ton clan), Alaska
Treaty at issue
none
Effect on land rights
eroded

What happened

The Tee-Hit-Ton Indians, an identifiable group of between 60 and 70 individuals residing in Alaska, belonged to the Tlingit Tribe. They claimed that the United States took timber from Alaskan lands in and near the Tongass National Forest that allegedly belonged to them. The area claimed was said to contain over 350,000 acres of land and 150 square miles of water. They sued in the Court of Claims for compensation under the Fifth Amendment.

No treaty was involved. The Court found that neither the Organic Act for Alaska of 1884 nor the Act of June 6, 1900 recognized any permanent rights of Indians in the lands they occupied. A Joint Resolution of August 8, 1947 authorized the sale of the timber without recognizing or denying the validity of claims to possession.

On February 7, 1955, Justice Reed wrote for the Court that "Permissive Indian occupancy may be extinguished by Congress in its own discretion without compensation," relying on Johnson v. McIntosh and other cases. The Court held that "Indian occupancy, not specifically recognized as ownership by action authorized by Congress, may be extinguished by the Government without compensation."

It rejected the argument that the group's "stage of civilization," its concept of property ownership or Russia's treatment of Natives took it out of the rule that applies to Indians in the States. The Court of Claims judgment was affirmed. Justice Douglas dissented.

Good to know. The acreage is the Tee-Hit-Tons' claim, not a court finding.

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. Permissive Indian occupancy may be extinguished by Congress in its own discretion without compensation.Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272 (1955) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  2. Indian occupancy, not specifically recognized as ownership by action authorized by Congress, may be extinguished by the Government without compensation.Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272 (1955) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  3. an identifiable group of American Indians belonging to the Tlingit Tribe of Alaskan IndiansTee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272 (1955) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)

Research notes. The page says Justices Warren and Frankfurter joined the dissent; the opened pages confirm a dissent by Justice Douglas but this was not checked for joiners. The claimed acreage is the Tee-Hit-Tons' claim, not a finding.

Who is doing the work

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 4

Decided a dispute over 2

Policy era 1

Nations named 1

Answered by 1

Sources

  1. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/348/272/legal text copy
The record’s fields
Holding
Unrecognized aboriginal occupancy is not property protected by the Fifth Amendment; Congress may extinguish it without compensation. Douglas, joined by Warren and Frankfurter, dissented.
Kind
Court case
Confidence
High

Correct this record