Term: 2015
Docket: 14-1406
Nebraska v. Parker
- Pro
14-1406 NEBRASKA V. PARKER DECISION BELOW: 774 F.3d 1166 CERT. GRANTED 10/1/2015 QUESTION PRESENTED: In Solem v. Bartlett , the Court articulated a three-part analysis designed to evaluate whether a surplus land act may have resulted in a diminishment of a federal Indian reservation. See 465 U.S. 463, 470-72 (1984). The Court found that the "statutory language used to open the Indian lands," "events surrounding the passage of a surplus land Act," and "events that occurred after the passage of a surplus land Act" are all relevant to determining whether diminishment has occurred. The questions presented by the petition are: 1. Whether ambiguous evidence concerning the first two Solem factors necessarily forecloses any possibility that diminishment could be found on a de facto basis. 2. Whether the original boundaries of the Omaha Indian Reservation were diminished following passage of the Act of August 7, 1882. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 14-1642
The case of Nebraska v. Parker in 2015 revolved around a dispute over whether the Omaha Indian Reservation had been diminished by an act of Congress in 1882, thereby allowing the state of Nebraska to subject the tribe and its members to various forms of taxation. The town of Pender, located within the disputed territory, argued that it was not part of the reservation and thus should not be subject to tribal liquor taxes. However, both lower courts ruled in favor of maintaining reservation boundaries as they were established by treaty in 1854. The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed these decisions stating that only Congress has power to diminish a reservation's borders and there was no clear evidence showing congressional intent for diminishment when it opened up portions for settlement under an 1882 law.
In the dissenting opinion for Nebraska v. Parker, Justice Thomas disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Congressional intent regarding Omaha Tribe's reservation boundaries. He argued that Congress intended to diminish the reservation in 1882 when it opened up tribal lands for settlement by non-Indians and did not explicitly preserve tribal jurisdiction over these areas. The dissent also criticized the majority’s reliance on ambiguous evidence from events after 1882 to determine congressional intent at that time, arguing this approach was inconsistent with precedent requiring clear evidence of such intent in statutory text or legislative history contemporaneous with passage. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential unfairness towards non-tribal members now subject to unexpected regulatory authority due to a change in legal interpretation more than a century later.
