Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States

8 Cl. Ct. 80, 1985 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1043
United States Court of Claims·Decided February 22, 1985·No. No. 74·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

ORDER TERMINATING DOCKET 74 AND AWARDING FINAL JUDGMENT

YOCK, Judge.

This case involves the appropriate valuation to be placed upon Sioux tribal land which the plaintiff ceded to the Federal Government under the Treaty of April 29, 1868 (1868 Treaty). 15 Stat. 635. During the last 60 years, the plaintiff, the Sioux Tribe of Indians, has initiated significant litigation involving claims arising out of the 1868 Treaty. See Sioux Nation of Indians v. United States, 220 Ct.Cl. 442, 446-47, 601 F.2d 1157, 1159, aff'd, 448 U.S. 371, 100 S.Ct. 2716, 65 L.Ed.2d 844 (1980); Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States, 85 Ct.Cl. 181, cert. denied, 302 U.S. 717, 58 S.Ct. 37, 82 L.Ed. 554 (1937); Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States, 84 Ct.Cl. 16 (1936). This particular case, seeking adequate compensation for the tribal land ceded to the Federal Government under the 1868 Treaty, has now entered its 35th year [81]*81of litigation.1 The ease has outlasted two tribunals, the Indian Claims Commission (1945-1978) and the United States Court of Claims (1855-1982), and threatens to outlast the current tribunal, the United States Claims Court, if allowed to proceed ad infi-nitum. Further, over the last 35 years of litigation, more than 28 judges and commissioners have exercised jurisdiction over this complex litigation.

This case was filed on behalf of the Sioux Tribe of Indians (“Sioux Nation”)2 by eight separate reservation tribes (“reservation tribes”). These eight reservation tribes are: (1) the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe; (2) the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska; (3) the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe; (4) the Ogla-la Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation; (5) the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe; (6) the Fort Peck Sioux Tribe; (7) the Rosebud Sioux Tribe; and (8) the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. For the purposes of this litigation, the eight reservation tribes are represented by three attorneys.3 As a result, while this case has only one plaintiff, the Sioux Nation, such plaintiff is made up of eight separate and distinct reservation tribes, each with its own legal philosophy and agenda about how the litigation should proceed and with what final result.

Throughout the long history of this case, the plaintiff has claimed that the defendant provided inadequate compensation for the Sioux tribal land ceded to the United States under the 1868 Treaty. The 1868 Treaty, one of several treaties signed at Fort Laramie, resulted in the acquisition by the Federal Government of vast acreage of Sioux tribal land, in what is now North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming and Nebraska. In return, the treaty provisions established the Great Sioux Reservation in the western half of South Dakota and obligated the Federal Government to provide the tribes with money, goods, services, and land.

The remaining issue in this case concerns the amount of valid offsets, if any, that the Federal Government may assert against the plaintiff’s interlocutory land valuation award of $43,949,700. See Sioux Tribe v. United States, 42 Ind.Cl.Comm. 257 (1978). These remaining offset issues, however, are not inconsiderable. In fact, the defendant claims that it is entitled to some $65 million in total offsets against the plaintiff’s $44 million interlocutory land valuation award.

The issue now before this Court is whether the Court should terminate this action at this time or allow further prolonged litigation. For the reasons stated herein, and after a long and careful review of all of the evidence now before the Court, this Court has decided to terminate this litigation and to award the plaintiff $39,-749,700 as fair and equitable compensation for its claims. This amount reflects the parties’ counsels’ negotiated settlement agreement as to what they considered to be fair and equitable compensation for the plaintiff’s claims, and, more importantly, it represents an amount that this Court believes constitutes fair and equitable compensation for the plaintiff’s historical claims, after taking into consideration the plaintiff’s interlocutory land valuation award of $43,949,700 and the Federal Government’s offset claims of some $65 million.

Facts

In 1950, following the passage of the Indian Claims Commission Act, 60 Stat. [82]*821049 (1946), codified at 25 U.S.C. § 70 et seq. (1976), the plaintiff filed its original Docket 74 case with the Indian Claims Commission (hereinafter Commission). Throughout the next 28 years, the Docket 74 case was litigated, dismissed, appealed, reconsidered, severed into two claims,4 and relitigated until the Commission rendered its final decision on the merits, land valuation, and offsets. Sioux Tribe v. United States, 42 Ind.Cl.Comm. 214, 256 (1978); Sioux Tribe v. United States, 42 Ind.Cl.Comm. 257 (1978).

On July 19, 1978, the Commission awarded the Sioux Nation $43,949,700, as compensation for the total value of the Sioux interests extinguished under the 1868 Treaty. Sioux Tribe v. United States, 42 Ind.Cl.Comm. 214 (1978); Sioux Tribe v. United States, 42 Ind.Cl.Comm. 257 (1978). However, construing the treaty to be one of peace, rather than cession, the Commission denied the defendant any payments on the claim offsets. In addition, the Commission denied the defendant any gratuitous offsets, based upon the defendant’s grossly dishonorable dealings with the plaintiff between 1875 and 1877. Sioux Tribe v. United States, 42 Ind.Cl.Comm. 214, 232 (1978). The Commission stated that such conduct “so taint[s] the course of dealings between the United States and the Sioux that we cannot in good conscience offset any gratuitous expenditures by the United States against any Sioux award in this docket.” Sioux Tribe v. United States, supra, 42 Ind.Cl.Comm. at 232.

On appeal from the above decision of the Commission, the Court of Claims reversed the Commission’s decision to deny the defendant any payment on the claim offsets and any gratuitous offsets. United States v. Sioux Tribe, 222 Ct.Cl. 421, 616 F.2d 485 (1980). In so holding, the Court of Claims found that the 1868 Treaty was primarily a treaty of cession, rather than a treaty of peace, and, as a result, reasoned that payment on the claim offsets were, “at least in substantial part, compensation for the land the Indians ceded to the government.” United States v. Sioux Tribe, supra, 222 Ct.Cl. at 425, 616 F.2d at 487. Thus, the court reversed the Commission’s decision denying all of the Federal Government’s payment on the claim offsets.

The Court of Claims also reversed the Commission’s decision to deny the defendant any gratuitous offsets. In so holding, the court, while recognizing that the Commission had considerable discretion to determine whether to allow gratuitous offsets, held that such a determination must reflect the “entire course of dealings” between the Federal Government and the Sioux.5 United States v. Sioux Tribe, supra, 222 Ct.Cl. at 431, 616 F.2d at 491. The Court of Claims noted, however, that the allowance of such gratuitous offsets is contingent on the entire course of dealings between the defendant and the plaintiff. United States v. Sioux Tribe, supra, 222 Ct.Cl. at 432, 616 F.2d at 491. See also United States v.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States, 8 Cl. Ct. 80, 1985 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1043 (cc 1985).

8 Cl. Ct. 80 (Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related