statehood

What happened

Does a territory becoming a state wipe out the treaty rights of Native nations within it? The Supreme Court answered yes in 1896, then reversed course.

Ward v. Race Horse (May 25, 1896) involved a Bannock man arrested in Wyoming for hunting. An 1868 treaty with the Shoshone and Bannock gave the right to hunt on unoccupied federal lands so long as game may be found there. The Court held that Wyoming's admission in 1890 extinguished that right, reasoning that states enter the Union on an equal footing and have power to regulate game within their borders.

In Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band (March 24, 1999), the Chippewa had ceded land in an 1837 treaty while keeping the right to hunt, fish and gather there. Minnesota argued statehood in 1858 ended that right. The Court affirmed the lower courts. It found that Minnesota's admission act makes no mention of Indian treaty rights and gives no sign that Congress considered the Chippewa's reserved rights.

Herrera v. Wyoming (May 20, 2019) returned to the same Wyoming problem. The Court held that the Crow Tribe's hunting rights under an 1868 treaty did not expire when Wyoming became a state. It said Mille Lacs, not Race Horse, controlled, and that Race Horse is repudiated to the extent it held treaty rights can be impliedly extinguished at statehood. It also held that Bighorn National Forest is not categorically occupied land, and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Good to know. Herrera held the forest is not categorically 'occupied,' not that every area in it is unoccupied, and left open whether Wyoming may regulate the right for conservation.

Summarized with AI assistance from 4 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error