Court case

United States v. Dann

In 1985 the Court held that depositing a $26 million claims award in a Treasury account for the Shoshone Tribe counted as "payment."

Citation
470 U.S. 39 (1985)
Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Year
1985
Nations
Western Shoshone (Newe Sogobia)
Treaty at issue
none discussed in opinion (Indian Claims Commission Act proceedings); Treaty of Ruby Valley (1863) is background [needs source]
Effect on land rights
eroded

What happened

In 1951 the Shoshone Tribe asked the Indian Claims Commission for compensation for the loss of aboriginal title to lands in several Western states. The Commission held that the title had been extinguished and later awarded $26 million. The Court of Claims affirmed.

The award was certified, and under a federal statute that certification automatically appropriated the amount. The money was deposited for the Tribe in an interest-bearing trust account in the United States Treasury. The Secretary of the Interior is required to submit to Congress a plan for distributing the fund, after consulting with the Tribe. The Secretary had not done so, because of the Tribe's refusal to cooperate.

The United States later brought a trespass action against members of the Tribe for grazing livestock without a permit on land involved in the earlier proceeding. They claimed aboriginal title to the land, so the government could not require grazing permits. The district court held that the title had been extinguished when the Commission's final award was certified for payment. The Ninth Circuit reversed.

On February 20, 1985, Justice Brennan wrote for a unanimous Court that "payment" under the Indian Claims Commission Act occurred when the funds "were placed by the United States into an account in the Treasury for the Tribe." Waiting for Congress to approve a distribution plan would frustrate the Act's purpose of disposing of Indian claims with finality. The Court reversed and remanded.

Good to know. The opinion calls the claimants the Shoshone Tribe; it does not say 'Western Shoshone.'

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. Payment" occurred under § 22(a) when the funds in question were placed by the United States into an account in the Treasury for the Tribe.United States v. Dann, 470 U.S. 39 (1985) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  2. the Indian Claims Commission (Commission) entered an interlocutory order holding that aboriginal title had been extinguished and later awarded $26 millionUnited States v. Dann, 470 U.S. 39 (1985) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  3. BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.United States v. Dann, 470 U.S. 39 (1985) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)

Research notes. The opinion calls the claimants the Shoshone Tribe and does not say "Western Shoshone"; the Western Shoshone National Council appears only as a friend-of-the-court filer. The atlas page statement that the Western Shoshone dispute the extinguishment and that the dispute continues is not supported by an opened source and is not asserted here.

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:

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

Decided a dispute over 2

Concerns the instrument 1

Policy era 1

Nations named 1

Sources

  1. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/470/39/legal text copy
The record’s fields
Holding
Under the Indian Claims Commission Act, 'payment' of a tribal award occurred when funds were deposited in a Treasury trust account, so the Act barred the Danns from asserting tribal aboriginal title as a defense. The Court expressed no opinion on whether individual aboriginal title could be raised and left that question for the lower courts.
Kind
Court case
Confidence
High

Correct this record