CASE 0:17-cv-05155-SRN-LIB Doc. 241 Filed 02/01/21 Page 1 of 112 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Court File No. 17-cv-05155 (SRN-LIB) Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, et al., DEFENDANTS’ Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM OF LAW v. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT County of Mille Lacs, et al., ON RESERVATION CESSION Defendants. CASE 0:17-cv-05155-SRN-LIB Doc. 241 Filed 02/01/21 Page 2 of 112 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... V INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS ................................................................ 2 A. The 1837 Treaty .................................................................................... 4 B. 1855 Treaty creates a reservation ........................................................ 5 C. The Dakota War of 1862 ...................................................................... 6 D. In 1863 the government opens negotiations to consolidate the Chippewa band at a new reservation. ................................................. 9 E. In 1864 Hole-in-the-Day negotiates a new treaty. ............................ 12 F. In 1867 the White Earth Reservation was created. ........................... 12 G. Timber interests and settlers seek to enter the former reservation.......................................................................................... 13 H. The Folsom Decision. ........................................................................ 15 I. In 1889 Congress passed the Nelson Act. ......................................... 16 J. Settlers and timber interest file on land within ceded reservation......................................................................................... 20 K. In 1902, the Band agreed to move to White Earth. ..........................23 L. Subsequent litigation over disposition of lands within the 1855 reservation.......................................................................................... 25 ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 30 I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD. ...................................................... 30 II. THROUGH A SERIES OF TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS, THE MILLE LACS BAND CEDED BOTH ITS 1855 RESERVATION AND ALSO ITS COMMUNAL PRIVILEGE TO STAY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE FORMER 1855 RESERVATION. ........................ 30 A. The 1855 Treaty with the Chippewa created the former Mille Lacs reservation. ................................................................................ 31 B. In 1863, the Mississippi Chippewa agreed to cede their six reservations. .......................................................................................33 C. In 1864 Hole-in-the-Day procures a new, but substantially similar treaty. ..................................................................................... 35 i CASE 0:17-cv-05155-SRN-LIB Doc. 241 Filed 02/01/21 Page 3 of 112 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page D. In 1867, along with other Mississippi Chippewa Bands, the Mille Lacs again ceded the lands granted in the 1863 and 1864 Treaties. .............................................................................................. 37 1. The plain language of three treaties shows unambiguous intent of cession. ..................................................................... 38 2. The plain language of the proviso in Article XII created neither a permanent home nor a permanent or exclusive right to occupancy. ................................................................. 39 E. In 1889 Congress enacted legislation to consolidate the Mississippi Chippewa bands including the Mille Lacs, at White Earth. ................................................................................................. 40 F. In 1902 the Mille Lacs Band accepted $40,000 to remove to White Earth. ....................................................................................... 41 III. THE CONTEMPORANEOUS UNDERSTANDING OF THE PARTIES TO THE VARIOUS TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS WAS THAT THE MILLE LACS BAND HAD CEDED THE 1855 RESERVATION. ....... 45 A. The Government expected the Mille Lacs Band to remove in short order. ......................................................................................... 45 B. In an 1875 council in Washington, head chief Shaboshkung admitted the Band had ceded the 1855 reservation. ....................... 49 C. In 1880 the Mille Lac Band asked for a new treaty to better protect their interest. ......................................................................... 51 D. For decades, the Department of Interior held that the Mille Lacs reservation had been ceded to the United States. .................... 52 E. After the Indian Reorganization of 1934, the Department again concluded the 1855 reservation at Mille Lacs was gone. .................. 61 F. The 1936 constitution of the Mississippi Chippewa Tribe conformed to Interior’s position that the Mille Lacs Band’s original reservation was gone. .......................................................... 63 G. Only recently has Interior reversed its position on disestablishment. .............................................................................. 64 IV. THE PATTERN OF SETTLEMENT FROM THE LATE 1800S TO THE EARLY PART OF THE 1900S IS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THE 1855 RESERVATION NO LONGER EXISTED. ................................. 65 ii CASE 0:17-cv-05155-SRN-LIB Doc. 241 Filed 02/01/21 Page 4 of 112 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page A. In 1884 Congress imposed a freeze on further patenting of land within the former reservation. ................................................. 66 B. Following the Walters decision in 1893 and 1898 Congress confirmed the validity of otherwise proper entries. ......................... 67 C. After agreeing in 1902 to move to White Earth, the large majority of Band members did so. .................................................... 71 D. The cartographic record also reflects disestablishment. .................. 73 V. THE BAND’S CLAIMS ARE BARRED BY THE DOCTRINES OF CLAIM PRECLUSION, ISSUE PRECLUSION, AND JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL. ................................................................................................... 75 A. The Band’s claims are barred by claim preclusion because the Supreme Court has already concluded the reservation does not exist. ................................................................................................... 75 1. In 1913, the Supreme Court confirmed the Band had ceded its reservation. ............................................................... 76 2. In 1926, the Supreme Court affirmed, as it did in 1913, the 1855 reservation no longer existed—it had been ceded to the United States. ...................................................... 79 3. The Band is bound by the finding that the Mille Lacs Reservation was expressly ceded by the 1864 Treaty. ........... 82 B. Issue preclusion bars the Band from relitigating the issues central to prior judgments affirming the 1855 reservation was ceded.................................................................................................. 83 C. The Band’s present assertion regarding the 1855 reservation is contrary to its earlier assertions and is thus barred by judicial estoppel. ............................................................................................ 85 VI. THE EQUITABLE DOCTRINE OF LACHES BARS THE BAND’S CLAIM REGARDING THE 1855 RESERVATION. .................................... 89 VII. THE INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION ACT BARS THE CLAIM BY THE MILLE LACS BAND THAT THE RESERVATION WAS NEVER DISESTABLISHED. .................................................................................... 92 A. In 1946 Congress created a tribunal to decide all types of tribal claims. ............................................................................................... 92 iii CASE 0:17-cv-05155-SRN-LIB Doc. 241 Filed 02/01/21 Page 5 of 112 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page B. The Mille Lacs Band claims regarding the continued existence of the Mille Lacs Reservation are barred by the ICCA. .................... 93 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 98 iv CASE 0:17-cv-05155-SRN-LIB Doc. 241 Filed 02/01/21 Page 6 of 112 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Baouch v. Werner Enters., Inc., 908 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 87 Bear v. U.S., 810 F.2d 153 (8th Cir. 1987) ............................................................................... 77 Block v. N.D. Ex Rel Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 273 (1983) ............................................................................................ 95 Bravo-Fernandez v. U.S., 137 S.Ct. 352 (2016) ........................................................................................... 84 Canadian St. Regis Band of Mohawk Ind. v. New York, 146 F. Supp. 2d 170 (N.D.N.Y. 2001) ................................................................. 77 Cayuga Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Pataki, 413 F.3d 266 (2d Cir. 2005) ............................................................................... 91 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) ...........................................................................................