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) ..........................................................................