green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
12.3 score
“plenary authority over the tribal relations of the indians has been exercised by congress from the beginning, and the power has always been deemed a political one, not subject to be controlled by the judicial department of the. government.”
Treatment trajectory · 1903 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1903
1964
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 43 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Jessica Tavares v. Gene Whitehouse
plenary authority over the tribal relations of the indians has been exercised by congress from the beginning, and the power has always been deemed a political one, not subject to be controlled by the judicial department of the. government.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. St. Clair
when 18 treaties were entered into between the united states and a tribe of indians it was never doubted that the power to abrogate existed in congress.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Granite Valley Hotel Ltd. Partnership v. Jackpot Junction Bingo & Casino
Id. at 565-67, 23 S.Ct. at 221-22 (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah
In Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S., at 566, 568, [23 S.Ct., at 221, 222], this Court dealing with the validity of a cession of tribal lands enacted in contravention of a treaty requiring three-fourth Indian consent, held: “The power exists to abrogate the provisions of an Indian treaty, though presumably such power will be exercised only when circumstances arise which will not only justify the government in disregarding the stipulations of the treaty, but may demand, in the interest of the country and the Indians themselves, that it should do so.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Malaterre v. Malaterre
The court also said that if this power to govern themselves is to be taken away from them it is for Congress to do it, citing Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 564, 566 , 23 S.Ct. 216, 220, 221 , 47 L.Ed. 299 , 305 37. 2 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Appellant-Plaintiff v. Honorable Richard Kneip, Appellees-Defendants
The legislation in question was constitutional, and the demurrer to the bill was therefore rightly sustained. 187 U.S. at 566, 568 , 23 S.Ct. at 221, 222 (Emphasis in original).
cited
Cited "see"
Murphy v. Royal
See Lone Wolf, 187 U.S. at 566-68 , 23 S.Ct. 216 ; see also Parker, 136 S.Ct. at 1081 n.l; Woodward, 238 U.S. at 294, 304-05 , 35 S.Ct. 764 ; Cohen at 198 & n.121. .
cited
Cited "see"
Murphy v. Royal
See Lone Wolf, 187 U.S. at 566-68 , 23 S.Ct 216 ; see also Parker, 136 S.Ct. at 1081 n.1; Woodward, 238 U.S. at 294, 304-05 , 35 S.Ct. 764 ; Cohen at 198 & n.121. 42 .
cited
Cited "see"
Wyoming v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
See Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 565 , 23 S.Ct. 216 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903).
cited
Cited "see"
Wyoming v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
See Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 565 , 23 S.Ct. 216 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903).
discussed
Cited "see"
Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Harnsberger
See Washington v. Wash. State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass’n, 443 U.S. 658, 675 , 99 S.Ct. 3055 , 61 L.Ed.2d 823 (1979) (“A treaty, including one between the United States and an Indian tribe, is essentially a contract between two sovereign nations.”) (citing Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 , 23 S.Ct. 216 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903)). 2.
discussed
Cited "see"
Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States
(2×)
See Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 566 , 23 S.Ct. 216, 221-22 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903).
cited
Cited "see"
United States Ex Rel. Torres-Martinez Band of Mission Indians & the Allottees v. Imperial Irrigation District
See Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 , 23 S.Ct. 216 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1902).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Burns
See Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 566 , 23 S.Ct. 216, 221 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903).
cited
Cited "see"
Red Lake Band v. United States
See Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 566, 568 , 23 S.Ct. 216, 221, 222 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903).
cited
Cited "see"
St. Cloud v. United States
See Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 , 23 S.Ct. 216 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903).
discussed
Cited "see"
Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Hodel
See Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 566-68 , 23 S.Ct. 216, 221-22 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903); Blake v. Arnett, 663 F.2d 906, 910 (9th Cir.1981); Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip 521 F.2d 87, 98 (8th Cir.1975), aff'd, 430 U.S. 584 , 97 S.Ct. 1361 , 51 L.Ed.2d 660 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
Ute Indian Tribe v. State Utah
See Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 , 23 S.Ct. 216 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903).
cited
Cited "see"
UTE Indian Tribe v. Utah
See Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 , 23 S.Ct. 216 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Wilson
See Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 , 23 S.Ct. 216 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903).
cited
Cited "see"
Bear v. United States
See Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 556 , 23 S.Ct. 216, 217 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Dion
See Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 566 , 23 S.Ct. 216, 221 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Dwight Dion, Sr., United States of America v. Asa Primeaux, Sr., United States of America v. Dwight Dion, Sr., United States of America v. Lyle Dion, United States of America v. Terry Fool Bull
See Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 566 , 23 S.Ct. 216, 221 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Truckee-Carson Irrigation District
(2×)
See Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 , 23 S.Ct. 216 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Truckee-Carson Irrigation District
(2×)
See Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 , 23 S.Ct. 216 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903).
cited
Cited "see"
Toineeta v. Andrus
See Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 565 , 23 S.Ct. 216, 221 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903).
discussed
Cited "see"
National Indian Youth Council v. Bruce
See cases cited note 26 supra. In Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, the Court stated the following, 187 U.S. at 565 , 23 S.Ct. at 221 : Plenary authority over the tribal relations of the Indians has been exercised by Congress from the beginning, and the power has always been deemed a political one, not subject to be controlled by the judicial department of the government. 28 .
cited
Cited "see"
Sangre De Cristo Development Corp. v. City of Santa Fe
See Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 , 23 S.Ct. 216 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Percy Kills Plenty
(2×)
See, Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 , 23 S.Ct. 216 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903). 39 History is replet with instances in which the federal government has altered this jurisdiction and Indian Tribal Court procedures.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Kiowa, Comanche & Apache Tribes of Indians
See Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 , 23 S.Ct. 216 , 47 L.Ed. 299 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Tooisgah v. United States
(2×)
See Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 554 , 23 S.Ct. 216 , 47 L.Ed. 299 . 15 Subsequently, by agreement dated October 6, 1892, approved June 6, 1900, 31 Stat. 676 , the Kiowa, Comanche and Apache Indians occupying the reservation agreed with the United States that subject to the allotment of land in severalty to the individual members of the tribes; the setting aside of 480,000 acres of grazing lands, and other considerations, the tribes ceded, conveyed, transferred, relinquished and surrendered forever and absolutely all their claim, title and interest of every kind and character in and t…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Bryant
See, e.g., Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 566-567 , 23 S.Ct. 216 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903) (relying on Kaga-ma’s race-based plenary power theory); Winton v. Amos, 255 U.S. 373, 391-392 , 56 Ct.Cl. 472 , 41 S.Ct. 342 , 65 L.Ed. 684 (1921) (Congress’ “plenary authority” is based on Indians’ “condition of tutelage or dependency”); Wheeler, supra, at 319 , 98 S.Ct. 1079 (Winton and Lone Wolf illustrate the “undisputed fact that Congress has plenary authority” over tribes); Lara, supra, at 224 , 124 S.Ct. 1628 (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (“The Court utterly fails to …
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Cobell v. Kempthorne
See, e.g., Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 565-68 , 23 S.Ct. 216 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. Thompson
See also Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 567-68 , 23 S.Ct. 216, 222 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903) (Court could not consider contentions that 1892 treaty with Kiowa and Comanche was obtained by fraudulent misrepresentations and concealment, that requisite number of male Indians had not signed and that treaty had been amended by Congress without submitting such amendments to the Indians because these matters were “solely within the domain of the legislative authority and its action is conclusive upon the courts”); Choctaw & Chickasaw Nations, 179 U.S. at 535-36 , 21 S.Ct. at 165 (if treaty of …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Edna Emerson Littlewolf v. Manuel Lujan, Jr., Secretary of the Interior
(2×)
See, e.g., Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 , 23 S.Ct. 216 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903) (upholding statute ceding Indian land without tribe’s consent and in abrogation of treaty).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Oneida Indian Nation v. New York
See, in accord, Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass’n, 443 U.S. 658, 675 , 99 S.Ct. 3055, 3069 , 61 L.Ed.2d 823 (1979) (“A Treaty, including one between the United States and an Indian tribe, is essentially a contract between two sovereign nations”); see also Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 566 , 23 S.Ct. 216, 221 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903); Holden v. Joy, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 211, 242 , 21 L.Ed. 523 (1872); C.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Oneida Indian Nation of New York, Cross v. State of New York, Counties of Broome, Chenango, Cortland, Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Madison, Oswego, Oneida, Onondaga, St. Lawrence and Tioga, Individually and as Class Representatives, Cross-Appellants. Oneida Indian Nation of Wisconsin and Oneida of the Thames Band, Plaintiffs- Cross-Appellees v. State of New York, Counties of Broome, Chenango, Cortland, Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Madison, Oneida, Onondaga, Oswego, St. Lawrence and Tioga, New York, and Valentine Ryan, New York Electric & Gas Corp., St. Regis Paper Co., and Georgia Pacific Corp., Individually and as Class Representatives, Cross-Appellants
We have applied them to Indians, as we have applied them to the other nations of the earth; they are applied to all in the same sense." Worcester v. Georgia, supra, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) at 559-60 . 66 See, in accord, Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, 443 U.S. 658, 675 , 99 S.Ct. 3055, 3069 , 61 L.Ed.2d 823 (1979) ("A Treaty, including one between the United States and an Indian tribe, is essentially a contract between two sovereign nations"); see also Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 566 , 23 S.Ct. 216, 221 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903); Holden v. Joy, 84 U.S. …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Michigan
See, e. g., Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 , 23 S.Ct. 216 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903), where the Court held that it could not consider the validity of an agreement allegedly obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation because the question of the validity of the agreement belonged to Congress.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. State of Mich.
See, e. g., Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 , 23 S.Ct. 216 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903), where the Court held that it could not consider the validity of an agreement allegedly obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation because the question of the validity of the agreement belonged to Congress.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Weeks v. United States
(4×)
See Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 551-52 , 94 S.Ct. 2474 , 41 L.Ed.2d 290 ; McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission, 411 U.S. 164, 172, n. 7 , 93 S.Ct. 1257 , 36 L.Ed.2d 129 ; see also Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 565-66 , 23 S.Ct. 216 , 47 L.Ed. 299 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. 5,677.94 ACRES OF LAND, ETC.
See also Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 , 23 S.Ct. 216 , 47 L.Ed. 299 ; Henkel v. United States, 237 U.S. 43 , 35 S.Ct. 536 , 59 L.Ed. 831 ; United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230 , 67 S.Ct. 252 , 91 L.Ed. 209 ; and The Seneca Nation of Indians v. Brucker, D.C., 162 F.Supp. 580 . 3 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States, Appt.
v.
William T. Sampson, Rear Admiral, U. S. Navy
v.
William T. Sampson, Rear Admiral, U. S. Navy
273.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 5, 1903.
Mr. James H. Hayden, for petitioners on this motion, ap-pellees.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (1) · Court of Appeals of Minnesota (1)
The Chief Justice.
This libel in prize was filed by Eear Admiral Sampson in his own behalf and also in behalf of all of the officers and enlisted men of the United States Navy, who took part in the engagement off Santiago de Cuba on July 3, 1898, in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, and went to a decree of condemnation from which this appeal was prosecuted.
On May 19, 1902, the death of Rear Admiral Sampson was suggested by the Attorney General, and a motion made that[*437] the cause proceed under its then caption and without the substitution of any other individual as a party, which was postponed to the hearing of thé case on its merits.
That hearing has been had, and counsel, in aid of the court, have made application for the substitution of the adminis-tratrix of Admiral Sampson, and submitted considerations in respect of the substitution also of one or more officers, as, and if, deemed necessary.
We think some one to carry on the proceedings in the interest of all should be substituted, but that it is not necessary that the personal representatives of those who may have deceased should come in, or that any person should ex officio be designated. The matter is merely one of convenience and without significance in itself.
Bear Admiral Evans, Bear Admiral Taylor, Captain French E. Chadwick, and others are represented in the litigation by counsel; but Bear Admiral Schley and others are not. Of those so represented, Bear Admiral Evans is absent on a foreign station, while Bear Admiral Taylor is within the jurisdiction. It seems to us that the substitution of Bear Admiral Taylor will satisfactorily meet the exigency, and it will be
Ordered accordingly.