Appellate Case: 14-9512 Document: 0101942024901019421095 Date Filed: 04/23/2015 Page: 1 Nos. 14-9512 and 14-9514 (Consolidated) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT STATE OF WYOMING, and WYOMING FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al., Respondents, NORTHERN ARAPAHO TRIBE, and EASTERN SHOSHONE TRIBE, Intervenors. EASTERN SHOSHONE TRIBE’S PRELIMINARY BRIEF ON THE MERITS (Deferred Appendix Appeal) ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED DONALD R. WHARTON Native American Rights Fund 1506 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302 Phone: (303) 447-8760 [email protected] ROBERT HITCHCOCK JEREMY BRAVE-HEART Eastern Shoshone Tribe Office of the Attorney General 3 Ethete Road Fort Washakie, WY 82514 Phone: (307) 335-8249 [email protected] [email protected] Appellate Case: 14-9512 Document: 0101942024901019421095 Date Filed: 04/23/2015 Page: 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ iii STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ................................................................. vi GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................ vii I. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 II. The Wind River Reservation Was Reserved By The Treaty of 1868 As A Permanent Homeland; If A Reservation Boundary Is To Be Diminished Congressional Intent Must Be Expressed Clearly, Taking Into Account The General Rule That “Legal Ambiguities Are Resolved To The Benefit Of the Indians” Is Given The “Broadest Possible Scope” In Diminishment Cases. ................................................................................... 2 III. The Language of the 1905 Act, the Surrounding Circumstances, and the Subsequent Treatment of The Area, All Indicate That There Was No Intent To Diminish The Reservation .......................................................................... 4 A. The 1905 Act does not clearly evince intent to diminish. ..................... 4 B. The Surrounding Circumstances Do Not Indicate An Intent To Diminish. ............................................................................................... 8 1. Repeated references to “diminished or “diminished reservation” do not provide evidence of congressional intent to diminish reservation boundaries. ............................................................... 8 2. The 1905 Act Differs Significantly from the Lander and Thermopolis Acts and the 1891 Unratified Agreement .............. 9 3. The Circumstances Surrounding the 1905 Act Differ Greatly From The Circumstances In Rosebud ....................................... 11 IV. Subsequent Events ......................................................................................... 14 i Appellate Case: 14-9512 Document: 0101942024901019421095 Date Filed: 04/23/2015 Page: 3 A. Wyoming Understood That The Opened Area Retained Reservation Status. .................................................................................................. 15 B. The History of Land Ownership By Indians and Non-Indians Is Consistent With Congressional Expectation That The Area Opened To Settlement Would Never Be Fully Settled By Non-Indians. .............. 17 1. Legal Survey Of The Area. ....................................................... 17 2. Advertisements For Land Sales. ............................................... 18 3. Patenting And Allotting Of Land. ............................................. 18 4. Population. ................................................................................ 21 5. Regulatory Actions Following The 1905 Act Were Consistent With Reservation Status. ........................................................... 23 6. Land Use In The Opened Areas Reflects The Understanding That The Area Retained Reservation Status. ............................ 27 a. Grazing. .......................................................................... 27 b. Minerals. ......................................................................... 27 c. Rights-of-way. ................................................................ 28 d. Irrigation. ........................................................................ 29 V. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 31 STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ......................................... 32 CERTIFICATION OF DIGITAL SUBMISSION .............................................. 33 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .................................................................. 34 ADDENDUM .......................................................................................................... 36 ii Appellate Case: 14-9512 Document: 0101942024901019421095 Date Filed: 04/23/2015 Page: 4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Ok. v. Kansas, 862 F.2d 1415 (10th Cir. 1988) ...................................................................................................... 3, 8 Atkinson Trading Post v. Shirley, 532 U S 645 (2001) ........................................... 24 Bates v. Clark, 95 U.S. 204 (1877) .......................................................................... 25 Berry v. Arapahoe and Shoshone Tribes, 420 F. Supp. 934 (D.Wyo. 1976) .......... 25 Cass County v. Leech Lake Band, 524 U.S. 103 (1998) .......................................... 20 Clairmont v. United States 225 U.S. 551 (1912) ..................................................... 25 Clarke v. Boysen, 39 F.2d 800 (10th Cir. 1930) ...................................................... 28 DeCoteau v. Dist. Cnty. Court, 420 U.S. 425 (1975) ................................................ 3 Dick v. United States, 208 U.S. 340 (1908) ............................................................. 25 Geraud v. Schrader, 531 P.2d 872 (Wyo. 1975) ............................................... 26-27 Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (1994) ......................................................................... 7 Mattz v Arnett, 412 U.S. 481 (1973) ................................................................ 3, 9, 14 Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373 (1902) ......................................................... 12 Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981) ...................................................... 24 Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001) ..................................................................... 24 Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978) ..................................... 24 Osage Nation v. Irby, 597 F.3d 1117 (10th Cir. 2010) ............................................ 14 Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, 430 U.S. 584 (1977) ............................... 6, 11, 12, 19 iii Appellate Case: 14-9512 Document: 0101942024901019421095 Date Filed: 04/23/2015 Page: 5 Seymour v. Superintendent of Washington State Penitentiary, 368 U.S. 351, 354 (1962) ..................................................................................... 7, 14 Shawnee Tribe v. U.S., 423 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2005) ............................................ 8 Shoshone Indian Tribe and Arapaho Indian Tribe v. Hathaway, Case No. 5367 (D.Wyo., Nov. 7, 1969) ........................................................................................... 26 Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984) .............................................................passim South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 U.S. 329 (1998) ........................... 2, 3, 12 U.S. v. Hampleman, Case No. 763 (D.Wyo., Jun. 26, 1916)................................... 26 U.S. v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544 (1975) ...................................................................... 25 U.S. v. McBratney, 104 US 621 (1881) ................................................................... 23 United States v Shoshone Tribe, 304 U.S. 111 (1938) .............................................. 2 United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371 (1905) .......................................................... 2 Winters v. U.S., 207 U.S. 564 (1908) ......................................................................... 2 STATUTES 4 Stat. 729 (1834) ..................................................................................................... 24 15 Stat. 673 (1868) ..................................................................................................... 1 18 Stat. 291 (1874) ................................................................................................. 2, 9 27 Stat. 120 (1892) .................................................................................................... 5 27 Stat. 260 (1892) ................................................................................................... 24 30 Stat. 93 (1897) ............................................................................................... 2, 5, 9 33 Stat. 1016 (1905) ..........................................................................................passim iv Appellate Case: 14-9512 Document: 0101942024901019421095 Date Filed: 04/23/2015 Page: 6 39 Stat. 519 (1916) ................................................................................................... 27 54 Stat. 642 (1940) ................................................................................................... 23 18 U.S.C. §§ 1154,