Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States

1968-05-27

Headline: Treaty-based hunting and fishing rights survive termination: Court affirms Menominee treaty rights were not extinguished by the 1954 Termination Act, limiting Wisconsin’s ability to regulate those rights and allowing compensation claims.

Holding:

Real World Impact:

Confirms Menominee treaty hunting and fishing rights remain despite the 1954 Termination Act.
Limits Wisconsin’s power to enforce state game laws against tribal treaty rights.
Leaves scope, beneficiaries, and state regulation questions unresolved for later litigation.

Topics: tribal treaty rights, hunting and fishing rights, state regulation of Indians, Indian termination law, compensation claims

Summary

Background

The Menominee Tribe was given a reservation by an 1854 treaty that described the land as to be “held as Indian lands are held,” a phrase the courts read to include hunting and fishing. In the 1954 Menominee Indian Termination Act Congress ended federal supervision and planned to transfer tribal property, and Wisconsin later began enforcing state game laws against Menominee members. The tribe sued the United States in the Court of Claims for compensation for the loss of those treaty-based rights.

Reasoning

The central question was whether Congress, by the Termination Act, had extinguished the tribe’s treaty hunting and fishing rights. The Court held that those rights survived. It read the Termination Act together with a related statute (Public Law 280), which expressly protected treaty-based hunting and fishing rights, and emphasized that Congress does not lightly abrogate treaty rights without an explicit statement. The Court also noted legislative remarks and the overall plan of the laws, and concluded that the Termination Act did not plainly remove the treaty protections.

Real world impact

As a result, the Menominee’s treaty hunting and fishing rights remain intact rather than automatically subject to Wisconsin regulation, and the tribe may pursue compensation claims for any taking. The Court did not decide detailed questions about who within the tribe may exercise those rights, their exact scope, or the precise degree to which the State may regulate them; those issues remain for later proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the Termination Act’s plain language subjected the tribe to state law after termination and would have treated the treaty rights as taken, entitling the tribe to compensation from the United States.