Gordon Montgomery v. United States

Background

A few members of the Pit River Indian Nation felled one ponderosa pine on public land within the original boundaries of their ancestors’ lands. They were prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. §1852, which forbids cutting timber on public lands but lists exceptions for miners, farmers, the United States, and any right under any existing law of the United States to cut timber from public lands. The defendants argued that their original aboriginal or Indian title created such an 'existing law' right. The Ninth Circuit rejected that defense and the prosecution proceeded.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court declined to take the petitions and denied review, so it issued no decision on the merits. Because certiorari was denied, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling stands and the question whether the 'existing law' clause covers aboriginal Indian title remains unresolved by this Court. Justice Douglas wrote a dissent arguing the case should be heard because prior decisions recognize Indian occupancy and use rights that can include cutting timber for use on ancestral lands.

Real world impact

As a result, the lower court’s rejection of the ancestral-title defense remains in effect and the prosecutions are not altered by the Supreme Court. The broader legal question about whether tribes or individual Indians may rely on aboriginal title to cut timber on public lands is left open to future cases. Any change on that issue will have to come from other courts or from Congress.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas emphasized past precedents recognizing Indian occupancy and use rights, urged a liberal construction in favor of Indians, and would have granted review and heard oral argument.