853 F.3d 436
8th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Joseph Jackson, an enrolled Indian, was charged with federal felonies allegedly committed in Redby, Minnesota, a town within the historic Red Lake Reservation; he moved to dismiss for lack of federal jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act, arguing a 1905 Act diminished the reservation and removed Redby from "Indian country."
- The Eighth Circuit in Jackson I vacated and remanded because the record then was insufficient to decide diminishment as a matter of law; the case returned for an evidentiary hearing focused on whether the 1905 Act removed the 312.09-acre Redby tract from the reservation.
- The 1905 Act allowed the Minneapolis, Red Lake & Manitoba Railway (MRL&M) to "select and take" up to 320 acres adjacent to its terminus, required compensation approved by the Secretary of the Interior, required approved plats, contained a liquor prohibition referencing the "diminished Red Lake Indian Reservation," and reserved congressional power to amend the Act.
- Historical context: prior 1889 and 1904 Acts used explicit cession language and diminished parts of the reservation; Red Lake resisted allotment and largely remained a closed (communal) reservation; MRL&M paid damages, obtained later patenting authority (1910 amendment and 1916 patent), and much of the land returned to federal trust for the Band.
- After a two-day evidentiary hearing with historians, tribal and local witnesses, and documentary evidence, the district court found the 1905 Act did not clearly and plainly evidence congressional intent to diminish; the Eighth Circuit affirms, concluding text plus historical context and subsequent treatment favor retention of reservation status and that present-day Redby remains Indian in character and under tribal governance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1905 Act diminished the Red Lake Reservation so Redby is not "Indian country" | 1905 Act language ("select and take", compensation, liquor clause, later patent) and local treatment show an intent to cede the land and remove it from reservation status | Text read in legislative and historical context indicates the Act extended an existing railroad right-of-way, not a cession; later patent/administrative acts do not retroactively show diminishment | Court held the 1905 Act did not diminish the reservation; land remains Indian country |
| Whether extrinsic historical evidence shows contemporaneous understanding of diminishment | Itemized appraisals, county deeds/taxes, and early administrative references show the land was treated as removed | Historical records, floor debate, contemporaneous usage of "diminished" referred to earlier cessions; Band resisted allotment; government maps and reports treated the land as part of the reservation | Court held historical context does not unequivocally demonstrate contemporaneous understanding of diminishment |
| Whether subsequent treatment/demographics prove diminishment | County registration of deeds and taxation, and non-Indian occupancy support state/local control | Federal maps, administrative reports, restoration to trust, tribal governance, and the area’s continued Indian character support retention | Court held subsequent treatment and current character favor Indian-country status, but are the least persuasive factors |
| Standard of proof for diminishment | (implicit) Government must show clear and plain congressional intent to diminish | Government argues absence of clear cession language means no diminishment; burden favors federal jurisdiction | Court applied precedent: only clear congressional intent will diminish; held such intent not shown, so reservation boundaries remain intact |
Key Cases Cited
- Nebraska v. Parker, 136 S. Ct. 1072 (Supreme Court 2016) (framework for determining congressional diminishment of reservations)
- South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 U.S. 329 (Supreme Court 1998) (textual and historical inquiry for surplus-lands diminishment cases)
- Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (Supreme Court 1984) (role of statutory text and contemporaneous understanding; subsequent treatment less persuasive)
- United States v. Jackson, 697 F.3d 670 (8th Cir. 2012) (earlier panel decision vacating judgment and remanding for evidentiary development)