Connecticut v. Mohegan Tribe

1981-06-22

Headline: Court refuses review of ruling that federal ban on unauthorized sales of Native American land may apply nationwide, creating uncertainty for eastern land titles and state-owned property.

Holding: The Court denied review of the Second Circuit’s ruling that the federal Nonintercourse statute applies to all Native land, leaving that decision intact and creating potential title uncertainty for large areas in the eastern United States.

Real World Impact:

Makes eastern land titles potentially vulnerable to tribal claims.
Leaves uncertainty for states and private landowners over ownership.
Keeps the Second Circuit’s nationwide reading of the statute in effect.

Topics: Native land claims, land titles, state land disputes, federal land-sale rules

Summary

Background

In 1977 a Native American tribe sued to regain about 600 acres of land then held by the State of Connecticut. The tribe said it had owned the land "from time immemorial" and that the land was taken without the United States’ required approval, in violation of the original 1790 Nonintercourse statute (now codified at 25 U.S.C. § 177). The District Court allowed the case to proceed and certified an interlocutory appeal. The Second Circuit affirmed, and that court concluded the Nonintercourse statute applies to all Indian land, not just land in what is called "Indian country."

Reasoning

The central question was whether the federal rule banning private sales of Native land without federal approval applies everywhere in the United States or only in designated "Indian country." The Second Circuit, after reviewing history and statutes, held the rule covers all Indian land, including land in the original thirteen states. The Supreme Court declined to review that ruling, so the appeals court decision remains in effect. The Court did not reach the merits; rather, it simply denied the petition for review.

Real world impact

Because the Second Circuit treated the federal rule as nationwide, the decision could put many eastern land titles at risk, according to the dissent. That creates uncertainty for state governments, private landowners, and tribes asserting historical claims. The denial of review is not a final resolution on the legal merits, and the issue could return to the Supreme Court in a future case.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Rehnquist dissented from the denial. He argued the Court should have taken the case because the appeals court’s ruling could threaten title to millions of eastern acres and because prior Supreme Court decisions (Oneida and Wilson) pointed in opposite directions on this territorial question.