Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

95 federal appellate · 40 district · 13 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 256 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “By the second clause of § 3, art. 4 of the Constitution, to Congress and to it alone, is given “power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.” [Emphasis added.]”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Edwards v. Carter · Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians v. United States

2. “Perhaps the most striking proof of the belief shared by Congress and the Executive that the Indians were not entitled to compensation upon the abolition of an executive order reservation is the very absence of compensatory payments in such situations. It was a common practice, during the period in which reservations were created by executive order, for the President simply to terminate the existence of a reservation by cancelling or revoking the order establishing it. That is to say, the procedure followed in the case before us was typical. No compensation was made, and neither the Government nor the Indians suggested that it was due. * * * * * "We conclude therefore that 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 that 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.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe · Pittsburg Midway Coal Mining Company v. Yazzie D J C

3. “statement by the Committee which reported the General Allotment Act of 1887, made within five years of its passage, is virtually conclusive as to the significance of that Act.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Metro Nat'l Corp. v. Comm'r · Talley v. Mathews