Solem v. Bartlett

Background

In 1979 the State of South Dakota prosecuted John Bartlett, an enrolled member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, for attempted rape. Bartlett challenged his conviction in federal court, arguing the crime occurred on land the 1908 Act opened to non-Indian settlement but that the area nonetheless remained part of the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation. Lower courts disagreed about the 1908 Act’s effect; the District Court and the Eighth Circuit sitting en banc found the Act did not shrink the reservation, while the South Dakota Supreme Court had reached conflicting views, so the case reached this Court.

Reasoning

The central question was whether Congress, by the Act of May 29, 1908, meant to reduce the reservation’s boundaries. The Court applied its settled test: only Congress can diminish a reservation, and such an intent must be clearly shown. The Court examined the Act’s language, the legislative history, how the Act was carried out, and later events. Because the Act authorized the Secretary to “sell and dispose” lands, created accounts for proceeds, reserved land for agencies and schools, allowed allotments, and lacked explicit cession language or clear tribal agreement to give up the land, the Court found no clear congressional intent to diminish. Subsequent laws and administrative practice were inconsistent, and most tribal members continued to live on the opened area.

Real world impact

The Court held that the presumption against diminution controls and affirmed that the opened lands remain part of the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation. Practically, that means federal, tribal, and not state criminal authority governs crimes by enrolled Indians there, and the decision resolves a long-running dispute over who has power to police and govern the opened lands.