Doctrine
recognized title
Where Congress by treaty or statute recognized that Indians would hold land permanently, taking it requires compensation, as in the Sioux Nation case.
- Definition
- Indian title recognized by treaty or statute; its taking is compensable under the Fifth Amendment.
What happened
Recognized title is Indian title that Congress has acknowledged in a treaty, agreement or statute. It is contrasted with aboriginal title, which has no such recognition. The difference matters when the United States takes the land.
The Supreme Court drew the line in Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States (1955): "Where the Congress by treaty or other agreement has declared that thereafter Indians were to hold the lands permanently, compensation must be paid for subsequent taking." For land held only by occupancy, the Court held there was no such right.
The Sioux Nation case shows the rule at work. In the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, the United States pledged that the Great Sioux Reservation, including the Black Hills, would be "set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation" of the Sioux. In 1980 the Court held that an 1877 Act implementing a later agreement "effected a taking of tribal property which had been set aside by the Fort Laramie Treaty," which "implied an obligation on the Government's part to make just compensation to the Sioux."
Compensation in these cases is money. The Court noted a principal sum of $17.1 million, with interest, as the fair market value of the Black Hills as of 1877.
Summarized with AI assistance from 4 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.
Where the Congress by treaty or other agreement has declared that thereafter Indians were to hold the lands permanently
Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272 (1955), Cornell LIIset apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation
United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980), Cornell LIIeffected a taking of tribal property which had been set aside by the Fort Laramie Treaty
United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980), Cornell LIIinterest on the principal sum of $17.1 million
United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980), Cornell LII
Research notes. The Sioux Nation's own position on the award was not examined. Shoshone Tribe v. United States (1937) was fetched but not read for this record. The 'fair market value as of 1877' is the Court of Claims' finding as described in the syllabus.
Who is doing the work
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
Applied in 4
Sources
No source is linked to this record yet. That is a gap we are working to close.
- Kind
- Doctrine
- Confidence
- Medium