Facebook Twitter Email
JULY 31, 2000

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Friday upheld an 1863 treaty and ruled that the Nez Perce Reservation in Idaho is still Indian Country.

In a unanimous opinion, the court affirmed a US District Court decision and refused to dismiss criminal charges against Christopher Webb. Webb, a member of the Nez Perce tribe, challenged the authority of the federal government to prosecute him for committing a crime in Indian Country.

Webb asserted that his own reservation has been diminished significantly such that the crime of which he is accused occurred on state, not tribal land. If that were true, the federal government would not be able to prosecute him.

Webb isn't the only one who believes certain parts of Nez Perce land are really state land. The North Central Idaho Jurisdictional Alliance, a coalition of 23 governmental entities located within the exterior boundaries of the Nez Perce reservation, has been challenging the tribe since 1996.

They say the tribe has been illegally asserting their authority over the activities of non-tribal members. If the reservation doesn't exist, they say, the tribe wouldn't be allowed to impose taxes or claim water rights because the land belongs to the state.

An 1855 treaty created a 7.5 million acre reservation in northeastern Oregon for the Nez Perce. But due to westward expansion, the United States negotiated a new treaty in 1863, and the tribe ceded over six million acres to the government, establishing the current reservation size at 750,000 acres.

Eventually, much of that land passed into non-Indian ownership through allotments issued under the Dawes Act of 1887. The Alliance says these lands aren't part of the reservation and aren't Indian Country.

"The reservation only extends to tribal members, tribal land, and tribal people," says Daniel M. Johnson, Chairman of the Alliance. "We disagree with the ruling."

Johnson compares the Nez Perce situation to a 1998 Supreme Court decision. The Court ruled that the Yankton Sioux Reservation was diminished significantly due to several factors, including a sum paid to the tribe and an indication that the tribe wished to "dissolve" itself.

But in Webb's case, the Ninth Circuit found that although the Nez Perce were paid $1.6 million for lands allotted in the 1890s, there was no evidence the tribe, nor Congress, wanted the reservation boundaries changed.

On the contrary, the court noted that the the tribe consistently opposed allotment. Some tribal leaders traveled to Washington, DC, to voice their opposition to opening up the reservation to white settlement.

Get the Nez Perce decision:
USA v. Webb (9th Circuit. No. 9930155. 7/00)

Get the Yankton Sioux decision:
South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, et al. 522 U.S. 329 (1998).
Syllabus | Opinion

Related Stories:
Group counters charges of racism (The Talking Circle 7/31)
Bigotry discussed (The Talking Circle 06/21)
Nez Perce dispute heats up (Tribal Law 7/19)
Couple may sue city over essay (Tribal Law 6/15)

Relevant Links:
The Nez Perce Tribe - www.nezperce.org
Nez Perce Treaties Site - members.stratos.net/cpetras/index.htm
North Central Idaho Jurisdictional Alliance www.camasnet.com/~stingray/ncija