Case 1:15-cv-00850-PLM-PJG ECF No. 586 filed 03/18/19 PageID.10106 Page 1 of 40 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN – SOUTHERN DIVISION LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY BANDS OF ODAWA INDIANS, a federally recognized Indian tribe, Plaintiff, Court File No.15-cv-850 v. Hon. Paul L. Maloney GRETCHEN WHITMER, Governor of the State of Michigan, et al., Defendants. Brief in Support of Tribe’s “Historical Motion” for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Exemption-Diminishment and Title-Diminishment Defenses William A. Szotkowski James A. Bransky Jessica Intermill 9393 Lake Leelanau Dr. Andrew Adams III Traverse City, MI 49684 Amy Kania Phone: (231) 946-5241 Hogen Adams PLLC E-mail: [email protected] 1935 W. County Rd. B2, Ste. 460 St. Paul, MN 55113 Donna Budnick Phone: (651) 842-9100 7500 Odawa Cir. E-mail: [email protected] Harbor Springs, MI 49740 [email protected] Phone: (231) 242-1424 [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians Case 1:15-cv-00850-PLM-PJG ECF No. 586 filed 03/18/19 PageID.10107 Page 2 of 40 Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................1 Background ..................................................................................................................................3 I. Historical background ..............................................................................................3 A. Federal Policy ..............................................................................................3 1. Removal policy (c. 1800 - 1850) .......................................................3 2. Reservation policy (c. 1850s - 1860s) ...............................................5 B. Federal policy in action in northern Michigan .............................................6 1. The 1836 Treaty ................................................................................6 2. The 1855 Treaty ................................................................................8 3. The 1856 Amendments .................................................................122 a. The Pine River Amendment ......................................................12 b. The Settler/Preemption Amendment .........................................13 c. The Graduation Act Amendment ..............................................14 II. Procedural background ..........................................................................................15 A. The Exemption-Diminishment Defense ....................................................16 1. Pleading raising the Exemption-Diminishment Defense ................16 2. Discovery concerning the Exemption-Diminishment Defense ............................................................................................16 B. The Title-Diminishment Defenses .............................................................19 1. Pleadings raising the Title-Diminishment Defenses .......................19 2. Discovery concerning land history and the Title- Diminishment Defenses ..................................................................20 Argument ................................................................................................................................21 I. Rule 56 motions for partial summary judgment appropriately dispose of legally insufficient defenses. ..................................................................................22 II. The Court should grant partial summary judgment against the Associations’ Exemption-Diminishment Defense. ................................................24 i Case 1:15-cv-00850-PLM-PJG ECF No. 586 filed 03/18/19 PageID.10108 Page 3 of 40 A. The Associations did not produce any evidence to support their Exemption-Diminishment Defense. ...........................................................24 1. The Pine River Amendment ............................................................25 2. The Settler/Preemption Amendment ...............................................26 3. Graduation Act ................................................................................27 B. The Court should grant summary judgment against the Associations’ Exemption-Diminishment Defense because there is no genuine dispute concerning the facts of this defense. ...........................28 III. The Court should grant partial summary judgment against the Title- Diminishment Defenses because they are legally insufficient. .............................28 A. Only Congress can diminish a reservation. ................................................29 B. Private land disposition cannot diminish a reservation. .............................29 C. The Court should grant summary judgment against the Title- Diminishment Defenses because they fail as a matter of law. ...................30 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................33 ii Case 1:15-cv-00850-PLM-PJG ECF No. 586 filed 03/18/19 PageID.10109 Page 4 of 40 Table of Authorities Cases Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) .......................................................................................................2, 22, 23 Buster v. Wright, 135 F. 947 (8th Cir. 1905) .................................................................................................30, 32 Cardinal v. United States, 954 F.2d 359 (6th Cir. 1992) .....................................................................................................2 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) .................................................................................................................23 DeCoteau v. Dist. Cty. Court for Tenth Judicial Dist., 420 U.S. 425 (1975) .................................................................................................................29 Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556 (1883) .................................................................................................................32 Jones v. Sage, No. 1:15-cv-360, 2016 WL 5349069 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 26, 2016) ........................................22 Keweenaw Bay Indian Cmty. v. Michigan, 784 F. Supp. 418 (W.D. Mich. 1991) ..................................................................................2, 29 Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) .....................................................................................................3 Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481 (1973) ...........................................................................................................30, 32 Maxey v. Wright, 54 S.W. 807 (Ct. App. Ind. Terr. 1900) ...................................................................................30 Minedeo v. ICI Paints, 398 F.3d 751 (6th Cir. 2005) .............................................................................................23, 24 Morris v. Oldham Cnty Fiscal Ct., 201 F.3d 784 (6th Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................................23 Moses v. Providence Hosp. Med. Centers, Inc., 561 F.3d 573 (6th Cir. 2009) .........................................................................................2, 22, 28 Navajo Tribe of Indians v. New Mexico, 809 F.2d 1455 (10th Cir. 1987) ...............................................................................................31 iii Case 1:15-cv-00850-PLM-PJG ECF No. 586 filed 03/18/19 PageID.10110 Page 5 of 40 Nebraska v. Parker, 136 S. Ct. 1072 (2016) ..................................................................................................... passim Office & Prof’l Emp. Int’l Union, Local No. 9, AFL-CIO v. Allied Indus. Workers Int’l Union, 397 F. Supp. 688 (E.D. Wis. 1975) ....................................................................................24, 33 Office & Prof'l Emp. Int’l Union, Local No. 9, AFL-CIO v. Allied Indus. Workers Int’l Union, 535 F.2d 1257 (7th Cir. 1976) ................................................................................................24 Oscar W. Larson Co. v. United Capitol Ins. Co., 845 F. Supp. 445 (W.D. Mich. 1993) ............................................................................2, 24, 33 Oscar W. Larson Co. v. United Capitol Ins. Co., 64 F.3d 1010, 1011 (6th Cir. 1995) .........................................................................................24 Red Lake Band, et al. v. United States 7 Ind. Cl. Comm. 576 (May 20, 1859) ...............................................................................6, 7, 8 Red Lake Band, et al. v. United States 20 Ind. Cl. Comm. 137 (Dec. 23, 1968) ..............................................................................7, 12 Seymour v. Superintendent of Wash. State Penitentiary, 368 U.S. 351 (1962) .................................................................................................................30 Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984) ......................................................................................................... passim South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 U.S. 329 (1998) ................................................................................................................29 Straub v. Kilgore, 100 Fed. App’x 379 (6th Cir. 2004) ........................................................................................23