Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians

1999-03-24

Headline: Treaty hunting, fishing, and gathering rights for Chippewa bands are upheld; Court rejects an 1850 removal order and other actions, preserving tribal access to ceded lands while allowing conservation rules.

Holding: The Court holds that several Chippewa bands retain the hunting, fishing, and gathering privileges guaranteed by the 1837 Treaty because the 1850 Executive Order, the 1855 Treaty, and Minnesota statehood did not lawfully end those rights.

Real World Impact:

Affirms tribal hunting, fishing, and gathering rights on ceded lands.
Declares the 1850 removal order ineffective to end treaty privileges.
Allows states to impose reasonable conservation regulations on those activities.

Topics: treaty rights, tribal hunting and fishing, state wildlife rules, historic treaties, Minnesota tribal rights

Summary

Background

Several Bands of Chippewa Indians gave up land in an 1837 Treaty but were guaranteed the right to hunt, fish, and gather on the ceded territory. The State of Minnesota, private landowners, and counties challenged those privileges. Litigation began in 1990; the United States intervened for the tribes. Lower courts and the Eighth Circuit found the bands retained usufructuary rights and the State asked this Court to review that ruling.

Reasoning

The Court examined three events Minnesota said ended the treaty rights: President Taylor's 1850 Executive Order, an 1855 land treaty, and Minnesota's 1858 admission to the Union. The Court held the 1850 removal order was unauthorized and inseverable from the part that tried to revoke treaty privileges, so it could not end the rights. The 1855 Treaty did not clearly abrogate the 1837 privileges. And Congress did not clearly intend statehood to extinguish those reserved treaty rights. The Court therefore concluded the Chippewa retain the 1837 hunting, fishing, and gathering privileges, subject to reasonable conservation rules.

Real world impact

The decision confirms that several Chippewa bands keep their 1837 Treaty privileges to hunt, fish, and gather on ceded lands. States may still adopt and enforce reasonable, nondiscriminatory conservation regulations, but those rules cannot simply override the treaty guarantees. This ruling preserves tribal access while signaling that regulatory disputes will be resolved under the treaty framework rather than by assuming the rights were extinguished.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the 1850 order and the 1855 Treaty should have been read to end the privileges and that statehood could extinguish temporary privileges; that view disagreed about severability and treaty meaning.