United States v. Chad Everett Bear, Sr.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 23327
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Chad Bear, Sr., an enrolled Indian, was convicted in federal court for sexual abuse of a child in or near New Town, North Dakota.
- Federal jurisdiction was premised on 18 U.S.C. § 1153 (major crimes in “Indian country”); the threshold question was whether New Town lies within the Fort Berthold Reservation (i.e., is "Indian country").
- Bear argued New Town was removed from the reservation when Congress authorized sale/disposal of surplus reservation land in the Act of June 1, 1910, so state jurisdiction would apply.
- The Eighth Circuit had previously held in City of New Town v. United States that the Fort Berthold Reservation boundaries (as set in the 1891 Act) include New Town and that the 1910 Act did not diminish those boundaries.
- Bear urged the court to reconsider City of New Town in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe (1998), which scrutinized reliance on statutory “saving clauses” when other statutory language strongly indicates diminishment.
- The panel reaffirmed that New Town remains within the reservation, relying also on Duncan Energy Co. v. Three Affiliated Tribes, and affirmed Bear’s federal convictions and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bear) | Defendant's Argument (United States) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether New Town is within the Fort Berthold Reservation for § 1153 purposes | The 1910 Act opened and disposed of reservation land, removing New Town from reservation (state jurisdiction) | New Town was not diminished by the 1910 Act; New Town remains reservation land and federal jurisdiction applies | New Town remains within the Fort Berthold Reservation; federal jurisdiction proper |
| Whether City of New Town precedent must be overruled due to Yankton Sioux | Yankton Sioux undermines City of New Town because it discounted “saving clauses” which New Town relied on | City of New Town did not rest solely on the saving clause; Yankton Sioux is distinguishable; Duncan Energy independently supports New Town | City of New Town remains good law for this statute; Duncan Energy confirms the result |
| Whether Yankton Sioux broadly prohibits reliance on saving clauses | Saving clauses cannot control where statutory language strongly indicates diminishment | Saving clauses remain relevant where statute is ambiguous and may tip balance toward non-diminishment | Yankton Sioux is context-specific; saving clauses may be considered depending on the statutory text |
| Whether any intervening Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Rosebud Sioux) already eroded New Town | Rosebud Sioux allegedly cast doubt earlier | Prior decisions were considered and did not undermine New Town on this statute; subsequent Eighth Circuit decisions reaffirmed it | Prior Supreme Court decisions do not negate New Town; Eighth Circuit precedent stands |
Key Cases Cited
- City of New Town v. United States, 454 F.2d 121 (8th Cir. 1972) (held Fort Berthold Reservation boundaries include New Town; 1910 Act did not diminish)
- Duncan Energy Co. v. Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, 27 F.3d 1294 (8th Cir. 1994) (reaffirmed New Town’s holding without relying on the saving clause)
- South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 U.S. 329 (1998) (held that where statutory language creates a strong presumption of diminishment, a saving clause cannot eviscerate that effect)
- Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984) (framework for determining whether Congress diminished reservation boundaries)
- Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (1994) (discussed standards for determining diminishment)
- Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kniep, 430 U.S. 584 (1977) (addressed a different surplus land act; not dispositive here)
- United States v. Standish, 3 F.3d 1207 (8th Cir. 1993) (rejected argument that New Town was no longer controlling)