Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

South Dakota Vs. Bourland

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 14, 1993

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

61 entries 4 linked 57 unlinked
Show
  1. Duro Vs. Reina US Supreme Court · May 29, 1990
  2. United States Vs. Dion US Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1986
  3. Rosebud Sioux Tribe Vs. Kneip US Supreme Court · Apr 04, 1977
  4. United States Vs. Mazurie US Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1975
  5. U.S. 679 (1993) October Term, 1992 Syllabus South Dakota V. Bourland
    Search
  6. the Tribe of its treaty right to do so. As for the 18,000 acres of former fee lands, the court held that Montana v. United
    Search
  7. States, 450 U. S. 544 , and Brendale v. Confederated
    Search
  8. Cheyenne River and Flood Control Acts, took the lands and opened them for the use of the general public. See Montana v. United
    Search
  9. Brendale v. Confederated
    Search
  10. certain rights in the taken area does not operate as an implicit reservation of all former rights. See United States v. Dion
    Search
  11. hydroelectric and flood control dams on the Missouri River in both North and South Dakota. See Lower Brule Sioux Tribe v. South
    Search
  12. Id., at 103. Nevertheless, relying on Montana v. United
    Search
  13. Tribe of its treaty right to do so. As to the 18,000 acres of former fee lands, however, the court found that Montana v. United
    Search
  14. States and Brendale v. Confederated
    Search
  15. U. S. 676 , 684 (1990) (emphasis added). See also Oliphant v. Suquamish
    Search
  16. and now reverse. II Congress has the power to abrogate Indians' treaty rights, see, e. g., Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip
    Search
  17. though we usually insist that Congress clearly express its intent to do so. See Menominee Tribe v. United
    Search
  18. U. S. 734 , 738 (1986). See also County of Yakima v. Confederated
    Search
  19. Montana v. United
    Search
  20. regulate the use of the lands by nonIndians. See 450 U. S., at 559. Similarly, six Members of this Court, in Brendale v. Confederated
    Search
  21. Regulatory authority goes hand in hand with the power to exclude. See Brendale v. Confederated
    Search
  22. of fee title in Montana, however, in that the terms of the l3The dissent argues that our reliance on Montana v. United
    Search
  23. in the taken area does not operate as an implicit reservation of all former rights. Our decision in United States v. Dion
    Search
  24. members who violate tribal law, to regulate tribal membership, and to conduct internal tribal relations, United States v. Wheeler
    Search
  25. U. S., at 323 (emphasis added), quoting United States v. Mazurie
    Search
  26. Washington v. Confederated
    Search
  27. upon the Tribe the authority to control hunting and fishing on those lands.''' Ante, at 688, quoting Montana v. United
    Search
  28. and fishing. In rejecting the Tribe's inherent sovereignty argument, the majority relies on the suggestion in Montana v. United
    Search
  29. contrary to 150 years of Indian-law jurisprudence and is not supported by the cases on which it relied. See Brendale v. Confederated
    Search
  30. in judgment and dissenting). There is no need to repeat that explanation here. 700 County of Oneida v. Oneida
    Search
  31. the Tribe the right to regulate non-Indian hunting and fishing. Despite its citation of Dion, supra, Menominee Tribe v. United
    Search
  32. States, 391 U. S. 404 (1968), and County of Yakima v. Confederated
    Search
  33. words to learned lawyers, but in the sense in which they would naturally be understood by the Indians.''' Washington v. Washington
    Search
  34. State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Assn., 443 U. S. 658 , 676 (1979), quoting Jones v. Meehan
    Search
  35. Id., at 560, n. 9. See also Brendale v. Confederated
    Search
  36. County of Yakima, 502 U. S., at 269, quoting Montana v. Blackfeet
    Search
  37. s authority survives and not the reverse.3 3 The majority's assertion that this Court's decision in United States v. Dion
    Search
  38. prints of the United States Reports. 706 MAY 3,1993 Certiorari Denied No. 92-8491 (A-821). JOHNSON V. SINGLETARY
    Search
  39. So. 2d 575. MAY 4,1993 Miscellaneous Order No. A-834. STEWART V. TEXAS
    Search
  40. would grant the application for stay of execution. MAY 8,1993 Certiorari Denied No. 92-8637 (A-842). JOHNSON V. SINGLETARY
    Search
  41. took no part in the consideration or decision of this application and this petition. No. 92-8638 (A-843). JOHNSON V. SINGLETARY
    Search
  42. Syllabus South Dakota V. Bourland
    Search
  43. and Brendale v. Confederated
    Search
  44. See Montana v. United
    Search
  45. See United States v. Dion
    Search
  46. North and South Dakota. See Lower Brule Sioux Tribe v. South
    Search
  47. Oliphant v. Suquamish
    Search
  48. See Menominee Tribe v. United
    Search
  49. County of Yakima v. Confederated
    Search
  50. See Brendale v. Confederated
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial