Gritts v. Fisher
Headline: Children born to enrolled Cherokee members after Sept. 1, 1902 and living March 4, 1906 are allowed enrollment and shares in land and funds under 1906 laws, rejecting claims that earlier law created a permanent right.
Holding: The Court held that Congress’s 1906 laws properly allowed children born after September 1, 1902 and living March 4, 1906 to be enrolled and share tribal lands and funds, and it rejected the challengers’ claim of a permanent property right.
- Allows later-born Cherokee children to be enrolled and receive allotments or shares.
- Leaves individual allotments made to 1902 enrollees intact.
- Affirms Congress’s authority to change enrollment rules before distribution is complete.
Summary
Background
Three enrolled Cherokee members who were on the 1902 roll sued to stop officials from enrolling and giving land or money to children born after September 1, 1902 but living on March 4, 1906. The dispute arises from a 1902 law that set enrollment as of September 1, 1902 and excluded later-born children, and later 1906 acts that authorized enrollment of minors living March 4, 1906 and continued the process of allotting and distributing tribal lands and funds. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Treasury were preparing to act under the 1906 laws, and lower courts dismissed the suit.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the 1906 statutes included children born after September 1, 1902 and whether Congress could change the 1902 rule. The Court read the phrase “minors living March 4, 1906” to include children born after September 1, 1902 and found that Congress validly authorized their enrollment and allotments. The Court explained that the 1902 law was an act of Congress creating administrative rules, not a contract that gave enrolled members an unchangeable, permanent property right, so Congress could lawfully alter enrollment rules before the tribal relations and distributions were fully carried out.
Real world impact
As a result, children born after September 1, 1902 and living March 4, 1906 may be enrolled and share in allotments and distributions under the 1906 acts, while earlier enrolled members keep their individual allotments. The decision affirms that Congress may adjust enrollment and distribution procedures while tribal property and relations remain under federal control.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?