Doctrine

reserved rights

Treaties are 'a grant of right from' tribes, not to them: reserved hunting and fishing rights survived cessions, statehood and even termination.

Definition
Rights tribes kept in treaties and agreements, including implied rights necessary to the reservation's purposes.

What happened

A reserved right is a right a tribe kept when it ceded land or agreed to a reservation. United States v. Winans (1905) concerned the Yakama treaty, signed in 1855 and ratified in 1859. The treaty ceded land but secured the right of taking fish "at all usual and accustomed places, in common with citizens of the territory." The Court wrote that "the treaty was not a grant of rights to the Indians, but a grant of right from them,—a reservation of those not granted."

Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band (1999) applied the idea to an 1837 treaty in which the United States guaranteed Chippewa hunting, fishing and gathering rights on ceded land. Minnesota argued the rights ended through an 1850 executive order, an 1855 treaty and Minnesota's 1858 statehood. The Court concluded "that the Chippewa retain the usufructuary rights guaranteed to them under the 1837 Treaty."

Herrera v. Wyoming (2019) reached the same result for a Crow Tribe hunting right under an 1868 treaty. The Court held that "Wyoming's admission into the Union did not abrogate the Crow Tribe's off-reservation treaty hunting right."

Menominee Tribe v. United States (1968) shows reserved rights surviving even termination: the Court held the hunting and fishing rights preserved by the Treaty of Wolf River "survived the Termination Act of 1954." Rights may still end if Congress clearly abrogates them.

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.

  1. the treaty was not a grant of rights to the Indians, but a grant of right from them,—a reservation of those not grantedUnited States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371 (1905), Cornell LII
  2. we conclude that the Chippewa retain the usufructuary rights guaranteed to them under the 1837 TreatyMinnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172 (1999), Cornell LII
  3. Wyoming’s admission into the Union did not abrogate the Crow Tribe’s off-reservation treaty hunting right.Herrera v. Wyoming, No. 17-532 (U.S. May 20, 2019), Cornell LII
  4. survived the Termination Act of 1954Menominee Tribe v. United States, 391 U.S. 404 (1968), Cornell LII

Research notes. Winans is described through the treaty article quoted in the opinion and the Court's reasoning sentence; the Court's result (that the fishing right was protected against the landowners) was not quoted. The narrative's last sentence, that rights may end by clear abrogation, is the rule described in the abrogation record (Dion). Implied reserved rights beyond fishing, hunting and water are not covered. The record's 'implied rights necessary to the reservation's purposes' idea is covered in the reserved water rights record.

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

Applied in 18

Show all 18

Sources

No source is linked to this record yet. That is a gap we are working to close.

Kind
Doctrine
Confidence
Medium

Correct this record