Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States - 316 U.S. 317, 62 S. Ct. 1095 (1942)

Rule:

There was no express constitutional or statutory authorization for the conveyance of a compensable interest to petitioner by the four executive orders of 1875 and 1876, and no implied Congressional delegation of the power to do so can be spelled out from the evidence of Congressional and executive understanding. The orders were effective to withdraw from sale the lands affected and to grant the use of the lands to the petitioner. But the interest which the Indians received was subject to termination at the will of either the executive or Congress and without obligation to the United States. The executive orders of 1879 and 1884 were simply an exercise of this power of termination, and the payment of compensation was not required. 

Facts:

In 1868 the United States and the Sioux Tribe entered into the Fort Laramie Treaty. By Article II of this treaty, a certain described territory, known as the Great Sioux Reservation and located in what is now South Dakota and Nebraska, was "set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation" of the Tribe. The United States promised that no persons, other than government officers and agents discharging their official duties, would be permitted "to pass over, settle upon, or reside in the territory described in this article, or in such territory as may be added to this reservation for the use of said Indians." For their part, the Indians relinquished "all claims or right in and to any portion of the United States or Territories, except such as is embraced within the limits aforesaid." Several years later an executive order restored three of the parcels of land to the public domain. The tribe sought compensation from the United States asserting that a taking occurred when the land was restored to the public domain. The recovery for compensation was denied. The tribe appealed.

Issue:

Was the order denying the compensation to the tribe proper?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the order denying compensation to the tribe. The court concluded that: (1) there was no express constitutional or statutory authorization for the conveyance of a compensable interest to the tribe; (2) the congressional and executive understandings of such executive conveyances did not imply that the tribe had received a compensable interest in the property; and (3) the executive orders were effective to grant the tribe the use of the property, but they were terminable at the will of the President or Congress without any financial obligation on the part of the United States.