United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians
The Court ruled that the Shoshone Tribe's treaty right to occupy its reservation included ownership of the timber and mineral resources within it, not merely the surface land, so the government owed compensation reflecting that full value.
The decision affirmed a multi-million-dollar award to the tribe for the government's 1878 taking of half the reservation for the Arapahoe Tribe, reinforcing that Indian treaty rights of occupancy are as valuable and complete as full fee ownership.
“For all practical purposes, the tribe owned the land.”
The Court's core conclusion that the tribe's occupancy right amounted to full ownership.
How it got here: The Court of Claims had earlier valued the taking as of the wrong date; the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, and the lower court recalculated the award, which the government again appealed.
The Case in Depth
What happened
An 1868 treaty set aside a large reservation in Wyoming for the Shoshone Tribe's permanent and exclusive use. In 1878, without the tribe's consent, the government placed a band of Arapahoe Indians on part of that reservation. The land contained valuable timber and mineral deposits. The tribe sued for compensation for this taking, and the dispute centered on how much that taking was worth.
The question before the Court
When the government let another tribe move onto part of the Shoshone Tribe's reservation, did the compensation owed have to include the value of the timber and minerals there, not just the bare land?
Why it matters
The ruling meant the Shoshone Tribe received compensation reflecting the full value of the land, including its valuable timber and mineral deposits, rather than a stripped-down valuation of bare occupancy rights. It also set a broader marker for how the government must value tribal treaty rights when it takes reservation land for other purposes, affecting future compensation disputes between the United States and Indian tribes.
What changes now
This decision finally resolves the compensation dispute in the tribe's favor, affirming the lower court's award that included the value of timber and mineral resources. No further proceedings were ordered; the judgment for the tribe, including interest, stands as a final resolution of this long-running claim.
Concurrences and dissents
How the Justices voted
Majority (1). Justice Butler (author).
Dissent (1). Justice Reed (author).
Dissent — Justice Reed
Justice Reed dissented from the Court's judgment but the opinion text provided does not include any separate dissenting opinion or stated reasoning. Read the full dissent →
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court reaffirmed its earlier holding that the tribe's treaty right of occupancy was as sacred and legally protected as full ownership in fee, even though the United States held bare legal title, so taking part of the land without consent required just compensation.
- The Court read the treaty's grant of 'absolute and undisturbed use and occupation' not as a narrow technical phrase but in the sense the Indians themselves would naturally have understood it, given the government's settled policy of dealing fairly with tribes.
- Applying the principle that standing timber and minerals are inherent parts of the land itself, the Court reasoned that a grant of exclusive, permanent occupancy of land necessarily included those resources unless the treaty expressly reserved them to the government.
- The Court found nothing in the treaty language reserving mineral or timber rights to the United States, and treated ambiguities in a guardian-ward relationship as required to be resolved in favor of the tribe.
- The Court also noted that the tribe's later 1904 cession of land in trust to sell timber and other resources reflected the parties' own understanding that the tribe, not the government, owned those resources.
- The Court concluded the earlier case allowing the government to recover logs cut by unauthorized tribal members did not decide the broader question of mineral or timber ownership, so it did not support excluding those resources from the compensation calculation.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Distinguishes United States v. Cook (19 Wall. 591)
The Court said this earlier case only addressed replevin of cut logs, not the scope of tribal ownership of minerals or timber.