DOCSLIB.ORG

No. 19-2070 in the UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
No. 19-2070 in the UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS Case: 19-2070 Document: 65 Filed: 05/20/2020 Page: 1 No. 19-2070 In the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY BANDS OF ODAWA INDIANS, Plaintiff - Appellant Cross-Appellee, v. GOVERNOR GRETCHEN WHITMER, Governor of the State of Michigan, Defendant - Appellee, CITY OF PETOSKEY; CITY OF HARBOR SPRINGS; EMMET COUNTY, MI; CHARLEVOIX COUNTY, MI, Intervenors - Appellees Cross-Appellants, TOWNSHIP OF BEAR CREEK; TOWNSHIP OF BLISS; TOWNSHIP OF CENTER; TOWNSHIP OF CROSS VILLAGE; TOWNSHIP OF FRIENDSHIP; TOWNSHIP OF LITTLE TRAVERSE; TOWNSHIP OF PLEASANTVIEW; TOWNSHIP OF READMOND; TOWNSHIP OF RESORT; TOWNSHIP OF WEST TRAVERSE; EMMET COUNTY LAKE SHORE ASSOCIATION; THE PROTECTION OF RIGHTS ALLIANCE; CITY OF CHARLEVOIX; TOWNSHIP OF CHARLEVOIX, Intervenors - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court Western District of Michigan, Southern Division Honorable Paul L. Maloney BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT - APPELLEE GOVERNOR GRETCHEN WHITMER Case: 19-2070 Document: 65 Filed: 05/20/2020 Page: 2 Dana Nessel Attorney General Fadwa A. Hammoud (P74185) Solicitor General Jaclyn Shoshana Levine (P58938) Kelly M. Drake (P59071) Laura R. LaMore (P79943) Assistant Attorneys General Co-Counsel of Record Attorneys for Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Defendant - Appellee Environment, Natural Resources, and Agriculture Division P.O. Box 30755 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 335-7664 Dated: May 20, 2020 Case: 19-2070 Document: 65 Filed: 05/20/2020 Page: 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Authorities ................................................................................... iv Statement in Support of Oral Argument ................................................viii Jurisdictional Statement ............................................................................ 1 Statement of Issue Presented .................................................................... 2 Introduction ................................................................................................ 3 Understanding the Word Reservation ....................................................... 4 Statement of the Case ................................................................................ 5 A. The 1836 Treaty council .......................................................... 5 B. The 1836 Treaty’s negotiated terms ........................................ 8 C. The 1836 Treaty as amended .................................................. 9 D. Uncertainty ............................................................................ 10 E. A new treaty ........................................................................... 14 F. The 1855 Treaty council ........................................................ 18 G. The 1855 Treaty ..................................................................... 23 H. After 1855 ............................................................................... 25 I. The district court’s decision ................................................... 28 Standard of Review .................................................................................. 29 Legal Standard ......................................................................................... 30 Indian Canons of Construction ................................................................ 30 Summary of Argument ............................................................................. 31 i Case: 19-2070 Document: 65 Filed: 05/20/2020 Page: 4 Argument .................................................................................................. 32 I. The language of the 1855 Treaty did not create Indian reservations that meet the definition of Indian country. .............. 32 A. The Tribe must meet the Indian country test. ..................... 32 B. The treaty did not set apart lands. ........................................ 33 C. The treaty did not require lands to be used for Indian purposes. ................................................................................. 39 D. The treaty did not impose ongoing federal superintendence over lands. .................................................. 41 E. Neither the facts nor the law support the Tribe’s proposed reservation test. ...................................................... 43 F. The treaty did not allot reservation lands. ........................... 46 II. The historical record demonstrates the Anishinaabek did not want or understand the 1855 Treaty to create Indian reservations. .................................................................................... 50 A. The parties planned to make band members individual landowners subject to state jurisdiction. .............................. 51 B. The parties agreed to give band members lands not subject to federal superintendence. ....................................... 55 C. The parties identified townships to allow band members to select farms, not to set apart lands. .................. 58 D. The parties never discussed reservations in connection with Article I. ......................................................................... 61 E. The Tribe’s arguments are not evidence. .............................. 64 III. If the 1855 Treaty created Indian reservations, they ceased to exist under the treaty’s terms. ................................................... 70 Conclusion and Relief Requested ............................................................. 72 ii Case: 19-2070 Document: 65 Filed: 05/20/2020 Page: 5 Certificate of Compliance ......................................................................... 73 Certificate of Service ................................................................................ 75 Designation of Relevant District Court Documents ............................... 76 iii Case: 19-2070 Document: 65 Filed: 05/20/2020 Page: 6 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128 (1972) ............................................................................... 46 Alaska v. Native Vill. of Venetie Tribal Gov’t, 522 U.S. 520 (1998) ................................................................... 33, 40, 41 Barker v. Harvey, 181 U.S. 481 (1901) ............................................................................... 33 Blair v. McAlhaney, 123 F.2d 142 (4th Cir. 1941) ................................................................. 48 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) ......................................................................... 30, 51 Choctaw Nation v. United States, 318 U.S. 423 (1943) ......................................................................... 30, 32 DeCoteau v. Dist. County Court for Tenth Judicial Dist., 420 U.S. 425 (1975) ............................................................................... 31 Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243 (1913) ................................................................................. 4 F.T.C. v. E.M.A. Nationwide, Inc., 767 F.3d 611 (6th Cir. 2014) ................................................................. 29 Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians v. Office of U.S. Atty. for W. Div. of Michigan, 369 F.3d 960 (6th Cir. 2004) ................................................................. 67 Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (1994) ......................................................................... 33, 43 Jones v. Meehan, 175 U.S. 1 (1899) ..................................................................................... 4 iv Case: 19-2070 Document: 65 Filed: 05/20/2020 Page: 7 Keweenaw Bay Indian Cmty. v. Naftaly, 452 F.3d 514 (6th Cir. 2006) ................................................................. 49 Leavenworth, L. & G.R. Co. v. United States, 92 U.S. 733 (1875) ................................................................................. 43 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) ............................................................................... 30 Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373 (1902) ........................................................................... 4, 43 Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172 (1999) ......................................................................... 30, 51 Newhall v. Sanger, 92 U.S. 761 (1875) ................................................................................. 37 Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 498 U.S. 505 (1991) ....................................................................... passim S. Utah Wilderness All. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 425 F.3d 735, 784-85 (10th Cir. 2005), as amended on denial of reh’g (Jan. 6, 2006) ................................. 34, 43 Shoshone Bannock Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476 (D.C. Cir. 1995) ............................................................... 43 Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States, 94 Ct. Cl. 150, 171 (1941), aff’d, 316 U.S. 317 (1942) ...................................................................... 38 Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984) ............................................................................... 48 South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc., 476 U.S. 498 (1986) ............................................................................... 30 U.S. ex rel. Bowlegs v. Lane, 43 App. D.C. 494 (D.C. Cir. 1915) ............................................. 36, 42, 55 v Case: 19-2070 Document: 65 Filed: 05/20/2020 Page: 8 United States v. Celestine, 215 U.S. 278 (1909) ..........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Michigan's Tribal Economies
    Michigan State University College of Law INDIGENOUS LAW & POLICY CENTER OCCASIONAL PAPER SERIES Michigan’s Emerging Tribal Economies: A Presentation to the Michigan House of Representatives Jake J. Allen, 2L, MSU College of Law Hannah Bobee, 2L, MSU College of Law Kathryn E. Fort, Staff Attorney, Indigenous Law and Policy Center Bryan Newland, 3L, MSU College of Law Wenona T. Singel, Associate Director, Indigenous Law and Policy Center Indigenous Law & Policy Center Working Paper 2007-07 April 13, 2007 Michigan's Emerging Tribal Economies I. Introduction II. Understanding Tribal Sovereignty III. Michigan Tribal Economies, Past and Present IV. Resources 2 I. Introduction The territory now known as the state of Michigan has been populated by indigenous peoples who have governed themselves since time immemorial. Today, Michigan has twelve Indian tribes recognized by the federal government as exercising sovereignty. The 2000 Census reported that Michigan has approximately 125,000 people who identify as entirely or partially American Indian.1 Of those who identified solely as American Indian, Michigan has the twelfth largest population nationwide and the fourth largest American Indian population east of the Mississippi River. Each of the Tribes in Michigan exercise of the powers of self-government within the land defined as Indian country under federal law. Indian country is a legal term of art defined by federal statute, and it includes all lands within reservation boundaries, all allotments, and all dependent Indian communities.2 Trust lands, or lands which the federal government holds in trust for the benefit of Indian tribes, also constitute Indian country.3 In addition to Indian country, another term of art with significance for Indian self- governance is the concept of a service area.
    [Show full text]
  • One Hundred Third Congress of the United States of America
    S. 1357 One Hundred Third Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-four An Act To reaffirm and clarify the Federal relationships of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians as distinct federally recognized Indian tribes, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Act''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress finds the following: (1) The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians are descendants of, and political successors to, signatories of the 1836 Treaty of Washington and the 1855 Treaty of Detroit. (2) The Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, and the Bay Mills Band of Chippewa Indians, whose members are also descendants of the signatories to the 1836 Treaty of Washington and the 1855 Treaty of Detroit, have been recog- nized by the Federal Government as distinct Indian tribes. (3) The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians con- sists of at least 1,000 eligible members who continue to reside close to their ancestral homeland as recognized in the Little Traverse Reservation in the 1836 Treaty of Washington and 1855 Treaty of Detroit, which area is now known as Emmet and Charlevoix Counties, Michigan.
    [Show full text]
  • LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY BANDS of ODAWA INDIANS 7500 Odawa Circle Harbor Springs, MI 49740
    LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY BANDS OF ODAWA INDIANS 7500 Odawa Circle Harbor Springs, MI 49740 TRIBAL RESOLUTION # 080507-04 Authorization to Stipulate to Entry of Consent Decree in the Inland Phase of United States v. Michigan WHEREAS the Waganakising Odawak, known as the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, is a nation of citizens with inherent sovereignty and right to self- governance; WHEREAS the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians (LTBB or Tribe) is a federally recognized Indian Tribe under Public Law 103-324, and is a party to numerous Treaties with the United States, the most recent being the Treaty of Washington of March 28, 1836 (7 Stat. 491) and the Treaty of Detroit of 1855 (11 Stat. 621); WHEREAS Article VIII(C)(2) of the LTBB Constitution delegates to the Chairperson the power "to represent the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians in an ambassadorial capacity" and Article VII(D)(23) delegates to the Tribal Council the power to "approve negotiations with any other governments, businesses or individuals by a majority vote of the Tribal Council;" WHEREAS in Article XIII of the Treaty of Washington of 1836 (7 Stat. 491), in which LTBB and the other signatory tribes ceded approximately 13,921,762 acres of land to the United States in what is now a large portion of the State of Michigan, “the Indians stipulate[d] for the right of hunting on the lands ceded, with the other usual privileges of occupancy, until the land is required for settlement;” WHEREAS LTBB is a party to the case of United States, Bay Mills Indian Community, Sault Ste.
    [Show full text]
  • 582 Governor Motion for Summary Judgment
    Case 1:15-cv-00850-PLM-PJG ECF No. 582 filed 03/18/19 PageID.9619 Page 1 of 73 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY BANDS OF No. 1:15-cv-850 ODAWA INDIANS, a federally recognized Indian tribe, HON. PAUL L. MALONEY Plaintiffs, v GRETCHEN WHITMER, Governor of the State of Michigan, et al. Defendants. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF HISTORICAL ISSUES Dana Nessel Attorney General Jaclyn Shoshana Levine (P58938) Kelly M. Drake (P59071) Laura R. LaMore (P79943) Assistant Attorneys General Attorneys for Governor Whitmer Environment, Natural Resources, and Agriculture Division P.O. Box 30755 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 335-7664 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Dated: March 18, 2019 Case 1:15-cv-00850-PLM-PJG ECF No. 582 filed 03/18/19 PageID.9620 Page 2 of 73 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ i Index of Authorities ...................................................................................................... iv Concise Statement of Issues Presented ..................................................................... viii Controlling or Most Appropriate Authority ............................................................... viii Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Nature of the Reservation Dispute ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Michigan Indian Treaties
    Michigan Indian Treaties Professor Matthew L.M. Fletcher Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians Michigan State University College of Law The Three Fires . Ottawa (Odawa) . Chippewa (Ojibwe) . Potawatomi (Bodewadmi) General Types of Treaties . Alliance . Removal . Land Cession/Sales . Reservation Establishment . Payment and Establishment of Federal Services (trust funds, education, fishing industry, agriculture, religion) 1821 & 1833 Treaties of Chicago . Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians . Huron Nottawaseppi Band of Potawatomi Indians . Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians (Gun Lake Band) . Massive Land Cession Treaties 1836 Treaty of Washington . Bay Mills Indian Community . Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians . Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians . Little River Band of Ottawa Indians . Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians . Burt Lake Band of Ottawa Indians; Grand River Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians; Others (Mackinac, Thunder Bay, etc.) . Massive Land Cession/Reservation Establishment/Removal? 1842 Treaty of LaPointe . Keewenaw Bay Indian Community (Chippewa) . Lac Vieux Desert Band of Chippewa Indians . Several Wisconsin Tribes 1855 Treaty of Detroit . 1836 Treaty Signatories (excluding Burt Lake) . Allotment Treaty to remedy implementation problems with 1836 Treaty . Followed by 1870s Acts of Congress 1855 Treaty of Detroit & 1864 Treaty (Saginaw Chippewa) . First Treaty Parallel to 1855 Treaty with the Ottawas and Chippewas . Allotment and Establishment of Reservations Michigan Treaty Map—Land Cessions Threats to Indian People . Removal – the US threatened to make Michigan Indians to move to land west of the Mississippi – Many Indians did flee to Canada – Oklahoma Ottawas, Prairie Band Potawatomi, Citizen Band Potawatomi . Hostile Non-Indians . Land Speculators Administrative Termination .
    [Show full text]
  • The Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes
    THE SWAN CREEK BLACK RIVER CONFEDERATED OJIBWA TRIBES HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 2822, TO REAFFIRM AND CLARIFY THE FEDERAL RELATIONSHIP OF THE SWAN CREEK BLACK RIVER CONFEDERATED OJIBWA TRIBES AS A DISTINCT FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED INDIAN TRIBE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES OCTOBER 7, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC Serial No. 105±116 Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house or Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 51±984 u WASHINGTON : 1998 COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELOÂ , Puerto WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina Rico WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada SAM FARR, California ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island CHRIS CANNON, Utah ADAM SMITH, Washington KEVIN BRADY, Texas WILLIAM D.
    [Show full text]
  • Sovereignty and Identity in the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, 1634-1994
    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 2016 A Fire That Could Not Be Extinguished: Sovereignty and Identity in the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, 1634-1994 Melisa Cushing-Davis Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss Part of the Indigenous Studies Commons Recommended Citation Cushing-Davis, Melisa, "A Fire That Could Not Be Extinguished: Sovereignty and Identity in the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, 1634-1994" (2016). Dissertations. 2278. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/2278 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 2016 Melisa Cushing-Davis LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO A FIRE THAT COULD NOT BE EXTINGUISHED: SOVEREIGNTY AND IDENTITY IN THE POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS, 1634 – 1994 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY JOINT DOCTORAL PROGRAM IN AMERICAN HISTORY/PUBLIC HISTORY BY MELISA CUSHING DAVIS CHICAGO, IL DECEMBER 2016 Copyright by Melisa Cushing Davis, 2016 All rights reserved. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I’ve come to believe that writing a dissertation is very similar to climbing a mountain. It takes years of preparation, hard work, and dedication. The writing can feel like a solitary endeavor. However, just as the climber could not achieve the summit without the assistance of a dedicated support team, so too would my efforts have been for naught without the help of so many others.
    [Show full text]
  • Implications for Reaffirmed Michigan Indian Tribes
    SUPREME COURT REVERSAL OF CARCIERI: IMPLICATIONS FOR REAFFIRMED MICHIGAN INDIAN TRIBES 1 BY NOVALINE D. WILSON Our tribe exists. We have been here long before the coming of the Europeans. Since the treaty making time we have not gone away or stopped being a tribe. There has never been an express action of Congress nor a history which terminated our tribe. We still live, work and raise our children in the same lands we occupied before the United States existed. 2 Frank Ettawageshik, Chairman of the Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians I. INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the case of Carcieri v. Kempthorne. This case arises out of the First Circuit where an en banc court issued a divided opinion that upheld the District Court for the District of Rhode Island in favor of the Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island (“Tribe”).3 The Supreme Court will decide two issues on appeal: 1) “[w]hether the 1934 Act empowers the Secretary to take land into trust for Indian tribes that were not recognized and under federal jurisdiction in 1934,” and 2) “[w]hether an act of Congress extinguished aboriginal title and all claims based on Indian rights and interests in land precludes the Secretary from creating Indian country there.”4 This paper analyzes Rhode Island’s (“the State”) primary argument that the Secretary of the Interior (“Secretary”) lacks the legal authority to take land into trust for the recently recognized Narragansett Tribe under the Indian 1 This paper was submitted on May 7, 2008 to fulfill the upper level writing requirement at the Michigan State University, College of Law, Indigenous Law and Policy Center.
    [Show full text]