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 ............................................................................... 2 Statement of Facts ......................................................................................................... 4 The 1836 Treaty Council..................................................................................... 4 The Original Terms of the 1836 Treaty ............................................................. 7 The Senate Amendments to the 1836 Treaty .................................................... 8 The Inter-Treaty Period ...................................................................................... 9 A New Treaty .................................................................................................... 11 The 1855 Treaty Council................................................................................... 12 The 1855 Treaty ................................................................................................ 16 The 1870s Acts .................................................................................................. 18 After The 1870s Acts ......................................................................................... 20 Legal Standard ............................................................................................................ 21 Indian Canons of Construction ................................................................................... 21 Argument ..................................................................................................................... 22 I. The 1855 Treaty did not create an Indian reservation for the political predecessors to the Tribe. ................................................................................. 22 A. The plain language of the 1855 Treaty did not create an Indian reservation. ............................................................................................. 22 i Case 1:15-cv-00850-PLM-PJG ECF No. 582 filed 03/18/19 PageID.9621 Page 3 of 73 1. The 1855 Treaty did not “set apart” lands. ................................ 23 a. Article I did not remove lands from the public domain to create an Indian reservation. .......................... 23 b. The 1855 Treaty is missing operative language used to create Indian reservations. .................................. 29 i. The 1854 Treaty of La Pointe ................................ 30 ii. The 1864 Saginaw Treaty ...................................... 31 2. The 1855 Treaty did not require lands to be used for Indian purposes. .......................................................................... 33 3. The 1855 Treaty did not subject lands to ongoing federal superintendence. .......................................................................... 35 B. The history surrounding the 1855 Treaty reveals that the parties did not intend to create an Indian reservation. ........................ 36 1. The bands had an explicit strategy to use individual land ownership and state citizenship to remain in Michigan, which the federal government encouraged. ................................ 37 2. The parties agreed to unrestricted, individual land ownership by band members. ...................................................... 39 3. The parties agreed to a process that allowed band members to select the best lands available. ............................... 42 4. The parties agreed to end federal oversight over lands selected under the treaty when patents issued. ......................... 45 5. The parties discussed reservations, but never in connection with the survey townships listed in Article I. .......... 47 II. If the 1855 Treaty created an Indian reservation for the political predecessors to the Tribe, that reservation ceased to exist under the treaty’s terms. ................................................................................................... 49 III. If the 1855 Treaty created an Indian reservation for the political predecessors to the Tribe that did not expire under the treaty’s terms, Congress disestablished that reservation in the 1870s. .................................. 51 A. The Solem test. ....................................................................................... 51 ii Case 1:15-cv-00850-PLM-PJG ECF No. 582 filed 03/18/19 PageID.9622 Page 4 of 73 B. Congress expressed its clear intent to disestablish the reservation in the language of the 1870s Acts. ..................................... 52 C. The 1870s Acts were contemporaneously understood to disestablish the reservation. .................................................................. 55 D. Subsequent history demonstrates that a reservation does not exist today. .............................................................................................. 57 1. Indians do not comprise a majority of the population. .............. 57 2. Indians do not hold the majority of lands. .................................. 59 3. People do not see the area as a reservation. ............................... 60 4. State and local government exercise jurisdiction. ...................... 61 Conclusion and Relief Requested ................................................................................ 63 Certificate of Compliance Concerning Word Limit .................................................... 64 iii Case 1:15-cv-00850-PLM-PJG ECF No. 582 filed 03/18/19 PageID.9623 Page 5 of 73 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Alaska v. Native Vill. of Venetie Tribal Gov’t, 522 U.S. 520 (1998) ............................................................................................ 34, 35 Antoine v. Washington, 420 U.S. 194 (1975) .................................................................................................. 21 Barker v. Harvey, 181 U.S. 481 (1901) .................................................................................................. 23 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) .................................................................................................. 21 Choctaw Nation v. United States, 318 U.S. 423 (1943) ............................................................................................ 21, 22 DeCoteau v. Dist. County Court for Tenth Judicial Dist., 420 U.S. 425 (1975) ...................................................................................... 22, 52, 54 Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243 (1913) .................................................................................................... 4 Fenn v. Holme, 62 U.S. 481 (1858) .................................................................................................... 26 Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (1994) .................................................................................. 3, 23, 52, 53 Irvine v. Marshall, 61 U.S. 558 (1857) .................................................................................................... 27 Keweenaw Bay Indian Cmty. v. State of Michigan, 784 F. Supp. 418 (W.D. Mich. 1991) ........................................................................ 30 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) .................................................................................................. 21 Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481 (1973) .................................................................................................. 54 Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172 (1999) .................................................................................................. 21 iv Case 1:15-cv-00850-PLM-PJG ECF No. 582 filed 03/18/19 PageID.9624 Page 6 of 73 N. Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Moen, 808 F.3d 373 (8th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................... 13 Nebraska v. Parker, 136 S. Ct. 1072 (2016) ........................................................................................ 54, 55 Nw. Bands of Shoshone Indians v. United States, 324 U.S. 335 (1945) .................................................................................................