Supreme Court Cases dealing with alloted Indian land

Clicking on the case name will access the full text of the court decision.

Cass County v. Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, 524 U.S. 103 (1998)	Court held that state and local governments may impose ad valorem taxes on reservation land that was made alienable by Congress and sold to non-Indians, but was later repurchased by the tribe.
South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 U.S. 329 (1998)	An act opening up “surplus land” left over from the allotment of Indian lands is evidence of congressional intent to “diminish” a reservation. Therefore, the Court held, non-Indian owned fee land that was ceded pursuant to a surplus act is not subject to federal environmental regulations even though the land may lie within the original boundaries of the reservation.
Babbitt v. Youpee, 519 U.S. 234 (1997)	Court held that section 207 of the amended Indian Land Consolidation Act that “forced escheat” of certain individually owned Indian property to a tribe was unconstitutional.
County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of Yakima Indian Nation, 502 U.S. 251 (1992)	Court ruled that a county could assess ad valorem taxes on reservation land owned in fee by individual Indians or the tribe that had originally been made alienable when patented under the General Allotment Act.
Brendale v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of Yakima Indian Nation, 492 U.S. 408 (1989)	Court held that the tribe does not have any authority to zone or regulate fee lands owned by nonmembers within the opened areas of the reservation. The ruling has important implications for the management of and jurisdiction over “checkerboard” reservations and the closed areas of the reservations.
Hodel v. Irving , 481 US 704 (1987)	The case deals with the original section 207 of the Indian Land Consolidation Act of 1983, which states that undivided fractional interests in allotments that are less than 2 percent of the total acreage of a tract or earn less than $100 for the owner during the previous year shall revert to the tribe upon the death of the interest owner, regardless if the deceased owner made a will and had legal heirs. The Court held that this provision was unconstitutional.
United States v. Mottaz, 476 U.S. 834 (1986)	Court held that a 12-year limitation period of the Quiet Title Act of 1972 barred a civil suit being brought against the United States over the sale of allotments completed without the notification of the interest-holder.
United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983)	Court held that the United States is accountable in money damages for alleged breaches of trust in connection with its management of forest resources on allotted lands of the Quinault Reservation. The court held the United States subject to suit for money damages on most of respondents' claims, ruling that the federal timber management statutes, various other federal statutes governing road building, rights-of-way, Indian funds, and government fees, and the regulations promulgated under these statutes imposed fiduciary duties upon the United States in its management of forested allotted lands.
United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (1980)	The Court held that the General Allotment Act cannot be read as establishing that the United States has a fiduciary responsibility for management of allotted forest lands, and thus does not provide respondents with a cause of action for the damages sought.
United States v. Clarke, 445 U.S. 253 (1980)	The Court held that Title 25 U.S.C. § 357 (based on the Act of March 3, 1901), which provides that lands allotted in severalty to Indians may be "condemned" for any public purpose under the laws of the state or territory where located, does not authorize a state or local government to "condemn" allotted Indian trust lands by physical occupation.
Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463 (1979)	The Court upheld the validity of the exercise of Washington State jurisdiction over Yakima Reservation. The Court also asserted that the "checkerboard" pattern of jurisdiction is not, on its face, invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hollowbreast, 425 U.S. 649 (1976)	The Court held that the Northern Cheyenne Allotment Act of 1926 did not give the allottees of surface lands vested rights in the mineral deposits underlying those lands.