Cannabis Sativa

How this document has been cited

"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.***"
- in Groundhog v. Keeler, 1971 and 349 similar citations
In addition, Supreme Court jurisprudence has consistently held that Congress has plenary authority over Indian affairs.
- in Morris v. Tanner, 2003 and 62 similar citations
"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 be so. When, therefore, treaties were entered into …
- in Merrill v. Bishop, 1955 and 122 similar citations
—the power "has always been deemed a political one, not subject to be controlled by the judicial department of the government" (
- in Sioux Nation of Indians v. United States, 1979 and 280 similar citations
But by 1904, the Supreme Court had declared that Congress had plenary authority over relations with Native Americans, so Congress no longer needed tribal approval to change reservation boundaries.
- in Wyoming v. USEPA, 2017 and 44 similar citations
—noted that Congress had exercised plenary power over tribal relations “from the beginning,” and so Indian affairs “were solely within the domain of legislative authority.”
—whether ratification of the amended Agreement, which had not received the approval of three-fourths of the adult male Indians, was appropriate, and concluded that it was:'It appearing, therefore, that more than three-fourths of the male adult Indians signed the original treaty, that more than a majority were willing to sell at a less (sic) price than provided in this bill, and fact …
- in Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, 1977 and 32 similar citations
That reservation Indians are "wards of the Nation" under the guardianship of the United States government, and the superior court is without power to declare a termination of this relationship
- in Acosta v. County of San Diego, 1954 and 32 similar citations
This policy shift and its corollary acts—such as coercive assimilation—were carried out without so much as the pretense of tribal consent.
- in Cobell v. Kempthorne, 2008 and 35 similar citations
Congress has the power to unilaterally abrogate treaty rights granted by treaty, although usually it must clearly express its intent to do so
- in Thompson v. County of Franklin, 1997 and 29 similar citations

Cited by

448 US 371 - Supreme Court 1980
601 F. 2d 1157 - Court of Claims 1979
543 NW 2d 376 - Minn: Court of Appeals 1996
559 NW 2d 135 - Minn: Court of Appeals 1997
968 F. 3d 664 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2020
Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2020
430 US 584 - Supreme Court 1977
Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit 2017
773 F. 2d 1087 - Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit 1985
716 F. 2d 1298 - Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit 1983

Leave a Reply