CASE 0:17-cv-05155-SRN-LIB Doc. 225 Filed 02/01/21 Page 1 of 109 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, a federally recognized Indian Tribe; Sara Rice, in her official capacity as Case No. 17-cv-05155 (SRN/LIB) the Mille Lacs Band Chief of Police; and Derrick Naumann, in his official capacity as Sergeant of the Mille Lacs Police Department, PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF Plaintiffs, LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY v. JUDGMENT THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF THE MILLE County of Mille Lacs, Minnesota; LACS INDIAN RESERVATION, AS Joseph Walsh, individually and in his ESTABLISHED IN 1855, REMAIN official capacity as County Attorney INTACT for Mille Lacs County; and Don Lorge, individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Mille Lacs County, Defendants. CASE 0:17-cv-05155-SRN-LIB Doc. 225 Filed 02/01/21 Page 2 of 109 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................. iii I. INTRODUCTION. ....................................................................................................... 1 A. Legal Standards. ............................................................................................................ 1 B. Argument Summary. ..................................................................................................... 5 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND. ..................................................................................... 9 A. The Mille Lacs Reservation. ........................................................................................ 9 B. 1863 and 1864 Treaties. .............................................................................................. 11 C. Timber Trespass and Conflict over the Reservation. .............................................. 16 1. Closure of the Reservation. ................................................................................ 16 2. The Sabin-Wilder Scheme; Chandler and Schurz’s Orders. .......................... 19 3. Little Falls Meeting. ............................................................................................ 21 4. Price’s Report. ..................................................................................................... 23 5. Teller’s Decision. ................................................................................................ 24 6. 1884 Act. .............................................................................................................. 27 7. Northwest Indian Commission. ......................................................................... 28 D. The Nelson Act. ........................................................................................................... 32 1. Legislative History. ............................................................................................. 32 2. Statutory Provisions. ........................................................................................... 34 3. Mille Lacs Negotiations...................................................................................... 35 4. Contemporaneous Reports. ................................................................................ 43 5. Contemporaneous Acts. ...................................................................................... 47 E. Indian Dispossession. .................................................................................................. 47 1. Unlawful Entries. ................................................................................................. 47 2. Noble’s Decisions. .............................................................................................. 50 3. 1893 Resolution. .................................................................................................. 53 4. The Band Resists Removal. ............................................................................... 54 5. Right to Allotments. ............................................................................................ 57 6. 1898 Resolution. .................................................................................................. 60 i CASE 0:17-cv-05155-SRN-LIB Doc. 225 Filed 02/01/21 Page 3 of 109 7. 1902 Act. .............................................................................................................. 65 F. Non-Removal Mille Lacs Indians. ............................................................................ 71 III. MILLE LAC BAND v. UNITED STATES ................................................................... 75 IV. ARGUMENT. ............................................................................................................ 76 A. The 1863 and 1864 Treaties Preserved the Reservation. ....................................... 76 B. The Nelson Act Preserved the Reservation. ............................................................. 82 1. Nelson Act Cases. ................................................................................................ 82 2. Supreme Court Cases. ......................................................................................... 87 C. The 1893 and 1898 Resolutions Did Not Disestablish the Reservation. .............. 96 D. The 1902 Act Did Not Disestablish the Reservation. ............................................. 98 V. CONCLUSION. ......................................................................................................... 99 ii CASE 0:17-cv-05155-SRN-LIB Doc. 225 Filed 02/01/21 Page 4 of 109 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Cathcart v. Minn. & M. R. Co., 133 Minn. 14, 157 N.W. 719 (1916) .................... 6, 84, 91 Chippewa Indians of Minn. v. United States, 301 U.S. 358 (1937) .................................. 97 Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665 (1912) .............................................................................. 97 Dalberth v. Xerox Corp., 766 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2014) ..................................................... 93 DeCoteau v. Dist. Cnty. Court for Tenth Judicial Dist., 420 U.S. 425 (1975) .......... passim Duncan Energy Co. v. Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, 27 F.3d 1294 (8th Cir. 1994) ................................................................................... 95, 96 Eckelkamp v. Beste, 315 F.3d 863 (8th Cir. 2002) ............................................................ 93 Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (1994) ................................................................. 3, 90, 91, 96 Herrera v. Wyoming, 139 S. Ct. 1686 (2019) ..................................................................... 2 Indian Country, U.S.A., Inc. v. Okla., 829 F.2d 967 (10th Cir. 1987) .............................. 93 Jones v. Meehan, 175 U.S. 1 (1899) .................................................................. 2, 78, 97, 98 Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. Cass County, 108 F.3d 820 (8th Cir. 1997), aff’d in relevant part, 524 U.S. 103 (1998) ......................................... 85 Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. Herbst, 334 F. Supp. 1001 (D. Minn. 1971) ................................................................................................. 82, 83, 84 Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903) ............................................................. 35, 76 Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481 (1973) ...................................................................... 2, 89, 90 McGirt v. Okla., 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020) .................................................................... passim Melby v. Grand Portage Band of Chippewa, 1998 WL 1769706 (D. Minn. Aug. 13, 1998) .............................................................................................. 85 Mille Lac Band of Chippewa Indians v. United States, 51 Ct. Cl. 400 (1916) ................. 76 Mille Lac Band of Chippewas v. United States, 47 Ct. Cl. 415 (1912), rev'd in part sub. nom United States v. Mille Lac Band of Chippewa Indians, 229 U.S. 498 (1913) ........................................................................................... 75, 81, 86 Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. Minn. Dep’t of Natural Res., 861 F. Supp. 784 (D. Minn. 1994), aff’d, 124 F.3d 904 (8th Cir. 1997), aff’d, 526 U.S. 172 (1999) ............................................................................................. 93 iii CASE 0:17-cv-05155-SRN-LIB Doc. 225 Filed 02/01/21 Page 5 of 109 Minn. Chippewa Tribe v. United States, 11 Cl. Ct. 221 (1986) ........................................ 81 Minn. v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172 (1999) ......................... 2, 88 Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373 (1902) ...................................................... 76, 77, 79 Neb. v. Parker, 136 S. Ct. 1072 (2016) ............................................................... 3, 4, 89, 90 New Town v. United States, 454 F.2d 121 (8th Cir. 1972) ............................................ 1, 79 Oneida Nation v. Vill. of Hobart, 968 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2020) ..................................... 1, 4 Pittsburgh & Midway Coal Mining Co. v. Yazzie, 909 F.2d 1387 (10th Cir. 1990) ......... 95 Rosebud Sioux v. Kneip, 430 U.S. 584 (1977) ...................................................... 90, 91, 95 S. D. v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 U.S. 329 (1998) .................................................... passim Seymour v. Superintendent of Wash. State Penitentiary, 368 U.S. 351 (1962) ............ 2, 89 Shawnee Tribe v. United States, 423 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2005) ....................................