In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

368 it was not severable from the invalid removal order. . . . To summarize, the historical record provides no support for the theory that the second sentence of Article 1 [of the Treaty of 1855] was designed to abrogate the usufructuary privileges guaranteed under the 1837 Treaty, but it does support the theory that the Treaty, and Article 1 in particular, was designed to transfer Chippewa land to the United States. At the very least, the historical record refutes the State’s assertion that the 1855 Treaty “unambiguously” abrogated the 1837 hunting, fishing, and gathering privileges. Given this plausible ambiguity , we cannot agree with the State that the 1855 Treaty abrogated Chippewa usufructuary rights. We have held that Indian treaties are to be interpreted liberally in favor of the Indians. . . . Finally, the State argues that the Chippewa ’s usufructuary rights under the 1837 Treaty were extinguished when Minnesota was admitted to the Union in 1858. In making this argument, the State faces an uphill battle. Congress may abrogate Indian treaty rights, but it must clearly express its intent to do so. . . . There must be “clear evidence that Congress actually considered the con- flict between its intended action on the one hand and Indian treaty rights on the other, and chose to resolve that conflict by abrogating the treaty.” . . . There is no such “clear evidence” of congressional intent to abrogate the Chippewa Treaty rights here. The relevant statute—Minnesota’s enabling Act— provides in relevant part: “[T]he State of Minnesota shall be one, and is hereby declared to be one, of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.” . . . This language, like the rest of the Act, makes no mention of Indian treaty rights; it provides no clue that Congress considered the reserved rights of the Chippewa and decided to abrogate those rights when it passed the Act. The State concedes that the Act is silent in this regard . . . and the State does not point to any legislative history describing the effect of the Act on Indian treaty rights. . . . Accordingly, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is affirmed. [526 U.S. Reports (Preliminary Print), 175–76, 193–95, 200, 202–3, 208.] 238. Federally Recognized Indian Tribes March 3, 2000 Of key importance to Indian tribes in terms of their sovereignty and selfdetermination as well as their eligibility for federal benefits and services is recognition or acknowledgment by the federal government. Many tribes have long been recognized because of treaties with the United States or because they had organized governments under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. In more recent years, other entities have been recognized by administrative action of the secretary of the interior or by special acts of Congress. Since 1979 lists of recognized tribes have been published periodically in the Federal Register. Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs summary: Notice is hereby given of the current list of 556 tribal entities recognized and eligible for funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs by virtue of their status as Indian tribes. . . . supplementary information: . . . Published below are lists of federally acknowledged tribes in the contiguous 48 states and in Alaska. The list is updated from the one published on December 30, 1998 (63 FR 71941), to include name changes or corrections , and two additional tribal entities. . . . The listed entities are acknowledged to have the immunities and privileges avail- 369 able to other federally acknowledged Indian tribes by virtue of their governmentto -government relationship with the United States as well as the responsibilities, powers, limitations and obligations of such tribes. We have continued the practice of listing the Alaska Native entities separately solely for the purpose of facilitating identification of them and reference to them given the large number of complex Native names. Dated: March 3, 2000. . . . Indian Tribal Entities Within the Contiguous 48 States Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation, California Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Oklahoma Alturas Indian Rancheria, California Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation , Wyoming Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians of Maine Assiniboine...


Additional Information

MARC Record
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.