Solem v. Bartlett facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Solem v. Bartlett |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued December 6, 1983 Decided February 22, 1984 |
|
| Full case name | Solem v. Bartlett |
| Citations | 465 U.S. 463 (more)
104 S. Ct. 1161, 79 L. Ed. 2d 443, 1984 U.S. LEXIS 34
|
| Prior history | 691 F.2d 420 (8th Cir. 1982); cert. granted, 461 U.S. 956 (1983). |
| Subsequent history | Rehearing denied, 466 U.S. 948 (1984). |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Holding | |
| Surplus Land Acts do not diminish reservations unless the act and its legislative history provide sufficient evidence of the intent to diminish. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Marshall, joined unanimously |
Solem v. Bartlett was an important case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1984. This case was about who had the legal power, or "jurisdiction," over certain lands that were once part of an Indian reservation. The Court decided that just because some reservation land was opened up for people who were not Native American to settle on, it did not mean the reservation's official borders had shrunk. For a reservation's boundaries to change, the United States Congress must clearly state that is their intention.
Contents
What Was This Case About?
This case focused on the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe's reservation in South Dakota. In 1908, a law called the Cheyenne River Act allowed the government to sell about 1.6 million acres (or 6,475 square kilometers) of this reservation land. The money from these sales was meant to help the Native American tribes.
The Dispute Over Land Control
Years later, in 1979, a member of the Sioux tribe named John Bartlett was involved in an incident on land that had been part of the 1908 sale. The State of South Dakota said it had the right to handle the case. However, John Bartlett argued that the land was still part of the Indian reservation. He believed that the 1908 Act only opened the land for settlement, but did not actually make the reservation smaller. If the land was still part of the reservation, then the tribe or the federal government, not the state, would have the legal power over it.
The Supreme Court's Decision
The Supreme Court looked closely at the history of how Indian reservations were created and how some land was later sold. In the late 1800s, large areas were set aside as Indian reservations. Later, some of this land was divided into smaller plots for individual Native Americans. Any extra land was sometimes sold to people who were not Native American.
The Court explained that land officially set aside as a reservation stays that way unless Congress clearly says it has changed. The Cheyenne River Act of 1908 only gave permission to "sell and dispose" of lands. It did not say that the reservation's borders were getting smaller.
Key Rules from the Solem Case
The Solem v. Bartlett decision set out three main rules to figure out if Congress intended to make a reservation smaller:
- Only Congress Can Change Borders: The Court said that once land is made into an Indian reservation, it stays a reservation. This is true no matter who owns individual pieces of land within that area. The only way for the reservation status to change is if Congress clearly states it.
- Clear Intent is Needed: A federal court will not easily assume that Congress meant to shrink a reservation. Any law that deals with selling surplus land must clearly state that the goal is to make the reservation smaller. If the law doesn't say this directly, it's assumed the reservation boundaries remain the same.
- Looking at History: Courts also look at the history of the law. They check how Congress and other government groups have treated the land since the law was passed. If the way the land has been treated strongly suggests it's no longer part of the reservation, even without clear words in the law, it might be considered reduced. However, if both the law and its history don't show clear proof of shrinking, the reservation is not considered diminished.
How Solem v. Bartlett Helped Other Cases
The rules from Solem v. Bartlett became very important for later cases about Indian country jurisdiction.
Hagen v. Utah
In a case called Hagen v. Utah, the Court used the Solem rules. They found that Congress had meant to shrink the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation in Utah. The law in that case specifically said that the extra lands would be "restored to the public domain." This clear language showed that Congress intended to reduce the reservation's size, unlike in the Solem case.
South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe
Another case, South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, also used the Solem rules. The Court decided that Congress had used clear language to make the Yankton Indian Reservation smaller. The fact that the government agreed to pay for these lands also supported the idea that the land had been given up by the tribe through a specific law.
Sharp v. Murphy and McGirt v. Oklahoma
The Solem rules were also important in a recent case called Sharp v. Murphy. This case involved the reservations of the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma. The question was whether a person accused of a serious crime should be under the state's legal power or the federal system's. The court used the Solem rules to decide that Congress had not clearly gotten rid of these reservations. This decision was later supported by the Supreme Court in the case of McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020). This means that for certain crimes, the federal court system, not the state, has jurisdiction over these lands.
