LONE WOLF V. HITCHCOCK

LONE WOLF V. HITCHCOCK, 187 U.S. 553 (1903). Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution places American Indian affairs and policies solely in the hands of the federal government, and throughout the nineteenth century the Supreme Court rearticulated and affirmed this "government to government" relationship. Treaties between the federal government and Indian nations became the primary mechanism for adjudicating differences, ending wars, and ceding lands. Once ratified by Congress, treaties became law, the foundation for Indian rights. In Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, the Supreme Court undermined the legal supremacy of Indian treaties and placed Indian affairs under the plenary power of the U.S. Congress.

The Kiowas and Comanches dominated the southern Plains for much of the Spanish, Mexican, and early American periods. Following increased white migration and conflict, the Kiowas and Comanches signed the Treaty of Medicine Lodge in 1867, which created a sizable reservation for them in Indian Territory. Article 12 of the treaty states that no further land cessions would occur "unless executed and signed by at least three fourths of all the adult male Indians" within the reservation and that no individuals would lose access to their existing treaty lands. With the passing of the Dawes General Allotment Act of 1887, Congress systematically attacked the communal land base of all Indian reservations, and in Indian Territory government agents pressured Comanche and Kiowa groups to allot their reservation lands. Government agencies lacked the signatures of a three-fourths majority of Indians, and Lone Wolf and other Kiowa-Comanche landholders who had lost access to their treaty lands following allotment sued. In Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, the Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the lower courts and ruled that Congress has "the power … to abrogate the provisions of an Indian treaty" and that Article 12 of the Medicine Lodge Treaty did not protect the Kiowa-Comanches from congressional rulings.

Placing Indian affairs under the power of Congress, the Supreme Court set the landmark precedent that treaties were not immune from congressional acts. Throughout the twentieth century, Congress passed numerous acts that violated Indian treaties, including the termination era laws of the 1950s and the 1960s, which attempted to "terminate" the federal trust status of Indian lands and communities.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Clark, Blue. "Lone Wolf" v. "Hitchcock": Treaty Rights and Indian Law at the End of the Nineteenth Century. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994.

Prucha, Francis Paul. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indian. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984.

NedBlackhawk

See alsoDawes General Allotment Act ; Indian Treaties .

Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903), argued 23 Oct. 1902, decided 5 Jan. 1903 by vote of 9 to 0; White for the Court. In Lone Wolf, the Supreme Court recognized a near‐absolute plenary congressional power over Indian affairs, virtually exempt from judicial oversight. This decision marked a decisive shift from the doctrines of the Cherokee Cases (1831–1832), which emphasized inherent tribal sovereignty and land rights. Lone Wolf has permitted the United States to appropriate tribal lands and resources under the guise of fulfilling federal trust responsibilities.

The litigation in Lone Wolf sought to block congressional ratification of an agreement allotting tribal lands, on the grounds that the allotment violated the 1867 Treaty of Medicine Lodge by failing to obtain the required consent of three‐fourths of adult male tribal members to land cessions. (See Treaties and Treaty Power.) Justice Edward D. White rejected this claim, denying that the agreement violated property rights of tribal members or deprived them of due process of law. In conformity with the then prevalent restrictive view of Indian tribal sovereignty, White held that Congress had plenary power over Indian property “by reason of its exercise of guardianship over their interests” (p. 565). He held this power to be political and not subject to judicial review. Under it, the United States could unilaterally abrogate provisions of treaties made with Indian nations, subject only to the requirement that actions of the United States toward its “wards” be guided by “perfect good faith” (p. 566).

Until recently, the Lone Wolf doctrine articulated an unreviewable congressional power and virtually standardless trust authority, which made it impossible for tribes to obtain judicial protection in disputes with the United States. Recent developments may suggest a narrower view of congressional power over Indian tribes as well as some constitutional limits on that power. In 1979 a federal judge called Lone Wolf “the Indian's Dred Scott.” But unlike that case, Lone Wolf has not yet been repudiated by political events or judicial decisions.

See also Judicial Power and Jurisdiction; Native Americans; Property Rights.

Bibliography

Blue Clark , Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock: Treaty Rights and Indian Law at the End of the Nineteenth Century (1999).

Jill Norgren