Violation

Mille Lacs (1999): Minnesota's denial of 1837 hunting, fishing and gathering rights

Not yet reviewed by this nation. What follows comes from public records and research. It does not speak for the nation.

Minnesota said an 1850 order, an 1855 treaty and statehood ended Ojibwe treaty rights to harvest; the Supreme Court disagreed in 1999.

Treaty
Treaty with the Chippewa (1837), 7 Stat. 536
Nations
Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe (Chippewa)
When
1850-1990s
Land affected
(Recovered, not lost) Rights had been denied in practice by state regulation until the ruling.
Acreage
n/a
Legal aftermath
Rights confirmed. Counterexample of treaty-rights vindication; shows that abrogation requires clear congressional intent.

What happened

Under the 1837 Treaty of St. Peters, several Chippewa bands ceded land in present-day Minnesota and Wisconsin. Article 5 guaranteed "the privilege of hunting, fishing, and gathering the wild rice" on the ceded lands "during the pleasure of the President." In 1850 President Taylor issued an executive order that ordered the Chippewa to leave the ceded territory and revoked those rights. The United States later abandoned removal. An 1855 treaty set aside reservations for the Mille Lacs Band but said nothing about earlier hunting and fishing rights. Minnesota became a state in 1858.

In 1990 the Mille Lacs Band and several members sued Minnesota over its restrictions on exercising those rights. The state argued that the 1850 order, the 1855 treaty and statehood had each ended them. In Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians (decided March 24, 1999), the Supreme Court held that the Chippewa "retain the usufructuary rights guaranteed to them by the 1837 Treaty."

The Court said a President's order must rest on an Act of Congress or the Constitution, and none authorized the removal order. It found the order could not be split into a valid and invalid part. It held the 1855 treaty did not end the rights, and that statehood alone did not. The vote was 5 to 4. Justice O'Connor wrote for the Court, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer. Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented, joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas, and Justice Thomas also wrote separately. The Court added that it did not mean a President could never revoke the rights in line with the 1837 treaty's terms.

Good to know. This is a case where the treaty rights were upheld, not lost; the dates span the years of dispute.

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. The Chippewa retain the usufructuary rights guaranteed to them by the 1837 Treaty.Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172 (1999), Cornell LII
  2. The privilege of hunting, fishing, and gathering the wild rice, upon the lands, the rivers and the lakes included in the territory cededTreaty with the Chippewa, 1837 (St. Peters), 7 Stat. 536, Tribal Treaties Database
  3. Taylor signed an executive order cancelling the land usage rights of the Lake Superior Ojibwe.Sandy Lake Tragedy, MNopedia (Minnesota Historical Society)

Research notes. Herrera v. Wyoming (2019) was not opened. Date range 1850-1990s is the dispute period; the rights were upheld, not lost.

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:

Working with these nations

Land return and Native-led work nearby

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

These links were matched automatically by name or date and have not yet been reviewed by a person.

Taken to court in 2

Nations named 2

Located in 1

Policy era 1

Concerns the instrument 1

Sources

  1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_Indian_Fish_and_Wildlife_Commissionpointer
  2. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/526/172/legal text copy
  3. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-7/pdf/STATUTE-7-Pg536.pdfprimary record
The record’s fields
What happened
Mille Lacs (1999): Minnesota's denial of 1837 hunting, fishing and gathering rights -- The 1837 treaty ceded land but kept the 'privilege of hunting, fishing, and gathering the wild rice' on ceded land 'during the pleasure of the President.' An 1850 executive order attempted to revoke the privilege and order removal; the 1855 treaty ceded more land but did not mention the rights; Minnesota became a state in 1858. Minnesota argued each ended the rights. The Supreme Court (5-4, O'Connor) held the 1850 order ineffective (the removal portion lacked legal authority and was not severable), the 1855 treaty did not abrogate the rights, and statehood did not extinguish them.
Kind
Violation
Confidence
High
Nation review
Not yet reviewed by this nation

Correct this record