UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 94-50369
Consolidated with 94-50541
THE TONKAWA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA,
in its sovereign capacity and as a
representative of its members,
Plaintiff/Appellant/Cross Appellee,
VERSUS
ANN RICHARDS, individually, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR., in his official
capacity as the Governor of the State of Texas,
GARRY MAURO, individually and in his official capacity
as Land Commissioner of the State of Texas,
and THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Defendants/Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
February 9, 1996
(Opinion October 23, 1995, 5th Cir., 1995, ____F.3d______)
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JONES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
ROBERT M. PARKER:
The State's Petiton for Rehearing was granted in order to
correct a factual error contained in the original opinion. That
opinion, Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Richards, 67 F.3d 103 (5th
Cir. 1995) is vacated and the following opinion is substituted in
its place.
Appellant, the Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma ("the Tribe" or "the
Tonkawas") brought suit against the State of Texas, its Governor
and Land Commissioner ("the State") to compel the State to donate
unspecified Texas lands to the Tribe for use as a homeland, and
seeking damages on the basis of an 1866 Act of the Texas
Legislature. The district court granted summary judgment for the
State. We affirm.
FACTS
Prior to the Spanish colonization of Texas, the Tonkawas lived
in what later became central Texas. During the Indian Wars, the
Tonkawas served as scouts and fought alongside the Texans against
other Indian tribes. In 1859, the Tonkawas were removed from Texas
to an Indian reservation in Oklahoma. On March 2, 1861, Texas
seceded from the Union and joined the Confederacy. Despite their
removal to Oklahoma, the Tonkawas remained loyal to Texas. In
1862, the Tonkawas learned of plans for an Indian raid on Texas and
forewarned the Texans. Because of this act of loyalty to the
Texans, the Tonkawas were massacred by the Delaware, Shawnee, and
Caddo tribes. In the massacre, 137 of the 300 Tribe members and
the Tribe's chief were killed. In recognition of the Tribe's
sacrifices, the Confederate Texas Legislature passed a Joint
Resolution in 18641 to provide temporary support and land to the
Tonkawas.
When the Civil War ended in 1865, Texas entered a period of
Reconstruction that lasted through January 1874. By letter of
September 20, 1866, Texas Governor J. W. Throckmorton appealed to
the federal government to allow a Texas agent to care for the
Joint Resolution in relation to the Tonkaway
[sic] Indians
Whereas, From the earliest settlement of Texas, and
during the war of Texas Independence and border wars with
other Indian Tribes, the Tonkaway [sic] Tribe of Indians
have remained true and faithful, and have been the close
and constant allies of our people; and
Whereas, At the earliest dawn of the present war,
said tribe declared their destiny to be our destiny, and
in consequence of their fidelity to the cause of Southern
Independence they were attacked by our enemies and more
than one-half of the tribe perished, including the brave
old veteran Chief Placadore, who, with his warriors,
women and children, proudly perished rather than betray
or desert the cause which they had espoused; and
Whereas, The remnant of this faithful people are now
wanderers on our soil, in the most wretched and dependent
condition; Therefore
1. Be it resolved, That the Governor take such
steps to settle them on the public domain of the State,
and at such place as he may deem proper.
2. That the sum of thirty-five thousand dollars
annually, for the years 1864 and 1865, be and the same is
hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury, not
otherwise set apart, for the support and maintenance of
said tribe of Indians; the same to be expended under the
direction of the Governor.
3. That these resolutions be in force from their
passage.
Approved May 28, 1864, 10th Leg., C.S., ch. 3, 1864 Tex.
Gen. Laws 42, reprinted in 5 H.P.N. GAMMEL, LAWS OF TEXAS 800 (1898).
3
Tonkawas and advised the Commissioner of Indian Affairs that he
intended to request support for the Tribe from the Provisional
Texas Legislature. On November 1, 1866, the Provisional Texas
Legislature, passed an Act to Provide for the Tonkawa Indians
("1866 Act")2 which included a section setting aside a league of
An Act to provide for the Tonkawa Indians
Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State
of Texas,
That the Governor shall appoint an agent for the Tonkawa
Indians, whose duty it shall be, under the direction of
the Governor, to locate and settle said Indians on the
lands set apart for them by the provisions of this act,
and who shall superintend and manage their affairs as the
Governor shall direct, for which service said agent shall
receive not more than five hundred dollars per annum,
which amount is hereby appropriated, and may be paid
quarterly, upon the approval of the Governor.
Sec. 2. That there shall be set apart for the use
of said Indians (Tonkawas), as a home, as long as they
shall live on the same, one league of land, out of the
unappropriated public domain of the State, to be selected
on the line of the frontier, at such suitable place as
the Governor may direct; Provided, the fee in said land
so selected shall remain in the State, and shall not be
subject to location or entry, as long as it is used for
the purpose herein provided for, and when it shall cease
to be so used, it shall not be disposed of except by act
of the Legislature.
Sec. 3. That the sum of three thousand five
hundred dollars, United States currency, or so much as
may be necessary, is hereby appropriated, out of any
unappropriated funds in the Treasury, which shall be
expended under the direction of the Governor for the use
and benefit of said Indians.
Sec. 4. That the Governor be required to apply to
the authorities of the General Government, to take these
Indians in charge and provide for them, and in the event
the Government shall do so, then the appropriation of
money herein made shall cease to be used.
Sec. 5. That the Governor is hereby authorized to
furnish to the Tonkawa warriors, one gun each, if there
4
land to be used by the Tonkawas "as a home, as long as they shall
live on the same." The Tonkawas have never resided on any land as
provided for under the 1866 Act.
After the massacre of the Tonkawas by the Delaware, Shawnee
and Caddo tribes, the Tonkawas returned to Texas, settling near
Austin. In April 1867, the Tonkawas were moved to Jacksboro,
Texas, where they were turned over to the care of Major Starr, the
Federal Commandant at the Jacksboro post.
Later in 1867, the Tonkawas were settled near Fort Griffin,
originally called Camp Wilson, in present-day Shackleford County.
During the time the Tonkawas resided near Fort Griffin, they
continued to serve as scouts for federal troops located at the
Fort. In September of 1874, the Tonkawas fought beside federal
troops against the Comanches in Palo Duro Canyon in the last major
battle of the Indian Wars. The Tonkawas remained at Fort Griffin
until 1884, at which time the Army left and the Tribe was once
again removed to Oklahoma.
The Tonkawas were settled on a reservation of approximately
91,000 acres located near Ponca City, Oklahoma, in June of 1885.
The Tribe's population continued to decline until there were fewer
than fifty tribal members left. The reservation has since been
be any belonging to the State on hand.
Sec. 6. That this Act take effect and be in force
from and after its passage.
Approved Nov. 1, 1866, 11th Leg., R.S., ch. 78, 1866 Tex.
Gen. Laws 73, reprinted in 5 H.P.N. GAMMEL, LAWS OF TEXAS 991 (1898).
5
decreased to 160 acres of land. The Tonkawas remain a small tribe,
with approximately 15 families living on the reservation. There is
no industry on the current tribal land, unemployment is high, and
the majority of the Tribe lives at or below the poverty line.
In June of 1992, the Tonkawas made a written request to Texas
Governor Ann Richards to select the league of land granted in the
1866 Act and apportion it to their use. By letter dated June 25,
1992, the Governor advised the Tribe that the Tribe's request had
been referred to Land Commissioner Garry Mauro, and that she had
requested him to investigate the Tribe's claim. In a letter dated
July 30, 1992, Mauro advised the Tribe that
[I]n 1867, at about the same time that the Tonkawa nation
was removed by the United States Army to Fort Griffin,
the United States imposed military rule on the State of
Texas. The imposition of Reconstruction effectively
deprived the civilian government of Texas of any ability
to carry out the Act of 1866.
In the years following 1867, the entire public
domain of the State of Texas was appropriated to other
uses, including the establishment of the Permanent School
Fund. All prior grants that were not surveyed and
located prior to the exhaustion of the public domain
cannot now be honored because there is no longer any
public domain from which to award them. The Texas
Constitution of 1876 prohibits the granting of any lands
belonging to the Permanent School Fund without full
compensation being paid.
I regret that the State of Texas is unable at this
late date to honor the commitment made by the Legislature
of 1866 because there is no public domain from which to
award the league of land provided for in the Act of 1866.
DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS
The Tribe sought a writ of mandamus from the Texas Supreme
Court. That court denied the Tribe leave to file the writ on July
8, 1993. Having exhausted its attempts to secure the league of
6
land directly from the State of Texas, the Tonkawas filed this
action.
In the Tribe's Complaint, filed November 15, 1993, they
requested the district court to declare that the 1866 Act granted
the Tribe an enforceable interest, claim, and right to land that
was not divested by the subsequent dedication of land to the
Permanent School Fund, or, alternatively, that if the Tribe's
interest and claim were so divested, such divestiture violated the
Nonintercourse Act, 25 U.S.C. § 177. In short, the Tribe sought a
court order directing the State to designate a league of land to be
used as a homeland by the Tribe and to take all steps necessary to
place the Tribe in possession of the land.
The district court, upon consideration of the parties' cross
motions for summary judgment, granted summary judgment for the
State and dismissed the case with prejudice. The ruling was based
on the district court's finding that the Tonkawas never retained a
vested property interest in the proposed league of land and that
the Tribe's claim does not come within the purview of the
Nonintercourse Act.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Appellate courts review summary judgments de novo, applying
the same standard as the district court. Bodenheimer v. PPG Indus.
Inc., 5 F.3d 955, 956 (5th Cir. 1993). Summary judgment shall be
rendered if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R.
CIV. P. 56(c). In making its determination, the court must draw all
7
justifiable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2513-
14, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986).
Additionally, treaties and statutes should be liberally
construed in favor of Indian tribes, with ambiguous provisions
interpreted to their benefit. See, e.g., Winters v. United States,
207 U.S. 564, 576-77, 28 S. Ct. 207, 211, 52 L. Ed. 340 (1908);
Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, 582, 8 L. Ed. 483
(1832).
NONINTERCOURSE ACT
a. Elements of a Nonintercourse Claim.
To establish a violation of the Nonintercourse Act3 ("the
Act") the Tribe must show that (1) it constitutes an Indian tribe
within the meaning of the Act; (2) the Tribe had an interest in or
claim to land protected by the Act; (3) the trust relationship
The Nonintercourse Act, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 177,
provides:
No purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of
lands, or of any title of claim thereto, from any Indian
nation or tribe of Indians, shall be of any validity in
law or equity, unless the same be made by treaty or
convention entered into pursuant to the Constitution.
Every person who, not being employed under the authority
of the United States, attempts to negotiate such treaty
or convention, directly or indirectly, or to treat with
any such nation or tribe of Indians for the title or
purpose of any lands by them held or claimed, is liable
to a penalty to $1000. The agent of any State who may be
present at any treaty held with Indians under the
authority of the United States, in the presence and with
the appropriation of the commissioner of the United
States appointed to hold the same, may, however, propose
to, and adjust with, the Indians the compensation to be
made for their claim to lands within such State, which
shall be extinguished by treaty.
8
between the United States and the Tribe has never been expressly
terminated or otherwise abandoned; and (4) the Tribe's title or
claim to the interest in land has been extinguished without the
express consent of the United States. See Catawba Indian Tribe v.
South Carolina, 718 F.2d 1291, 1295 (4th Cir. 1983), rev'd on other
grounds, 476 U.S. 498, 106 S. Ct. 2039, 906 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1986);
Mashpee Tribe v. New Seabury Corp., 427 F. Supp. 899, 902 (D. Mass.
1977); Narragansett Tribe of Indians v. Southern Rhode Island Land
Dev. Corp., 418 F. Supp. 798, 803 (D.R.I. 1976). The district
court expressly determined, and Appellees concede, that the Tribe
has satisfied the first and third elements. There is likewise no
dispute concerning the fourth element. Rather, the district
court's decision was based on its holding that the Tribe failed to
establish the second element -- that is, the Tribe had no interest
in or claim to land protected by the Nonintercourse Act.
b. The District Court's Analysis.
The district court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in
United States v. Rowell, 243 U.S. 464, 37 S. Ct. 425, 61 L. Ed. 848
(1917). In Rowell, the plaintiff, an adopted member of the Kiowa,
Comanche, and Apache Tribes, asserted a vested property right and
a right to issuance of an allotment under a statute that authorized
and directed "the Secretary of the Interior . . . to issue a patent
in fee for the tract in controversy to James F. Rowell." Rowell,
243 U.S. at 465, 37 S. Ct. at 426. Rowell argued that the statute
was a grant in praesenti. The Supreme Court stated:
But it is insisted that the provision of June 17, 1910,
was a grant in praesenti and operated in itself to pass
9
the full title to Rowell, and therefore that he had a
vested right in the land which the repealing act could
not affect. Of course, a grant may be made by a law as
well as by a patent issued pursuant to a law, but whether
a particular law operates in itself as a present grant is
always a question of intention.
Rowell, 243 U.S. at 469, 37 S. Ct. at 427. In the statute in
controversy, there were no words of present grant but only a
direction to the Secretary of Interior to issue a patent to Rowell.
The Supreme Court held that the statute should be construed only as
a proposal by the government, which was amendable and repealable at
the will of Congress. Because the act in controversy had not been
carried into effect by the issuance of an allotment, no vested
property right ever accrued in favor of Rowell.
The district court found, under the reasoning in Rowell, that
no vested property right accrued in favor of the Tribe under the
1866 Act.
The 1866 Act set aside the league of land so long as the
Tribe used it as a homeland. It directed the Governor,
in permissive rather than mandatory language, to set
aside the land. The land was never set aside by the
Governor, the Tribe never used any "league of land" as
its homeland . . . . The Texas Legislature, in
subsequent legislation, dedicated all of the
unappropriated public domain to other purposes. The
Tonkawas never retained a vested property interest in the
proposed league of land. The interest at best could have
been correctly characterized as a mere expectancy -- an
expectancy which was extinguished when the State
dedicated the public domain to other purposes.
Memorandum Opinion and Order, July 21, 1994, p. 16. The district
court went on to hold that the Tribe's claim does not come within
the purview of the Nonintercourse Act because a cause of action
under that Act requires an "alienation of Indian Lands." Because
the Tonkawas never held the land as their own or used it as a
10
homeland, there was no alienation of Indian Lands under these
circumstances, according to the district court.
The Tribe contends on appeal that the 1866 Act granted the
Tribe, at the minimum, a present equitable interest in or claim to
a league of unappropriated land in Texas. When the legislature
later disposed of all the remaining unappropriated land, they
argue, it extinguished the Tribe's claim in violation of the
Nonintercourse Act.
c. The Reach of the Nonintercourse Act
We must analyze the question thus presented in the context of
Congressional intent and judicial interpretation of the
Nonintercourse Act. It was originally enacted in 1790, see Mohegan
Tribe v. Connecticut, 528 F. Supp. 1359, 1362-63 (D. Conn. 1982),
and the current version dates to 1834. 25 U.S.C. § 177 (1983).
The Act's purpose is to prevent unfair, improvident, or improper
disposition by Indians of lands owned or possessed by them to other
parties, except the United States, without the consent of Congress.
Federal Power Comm'n v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99, 119,
80 S. Ct. 543, 555, 4 L. Ed. 2d 584 (1960). The Act broadly
protects Indian tribes' rights to and interests in land:
The Indian Nonintercourse Act . . . has been perhaps the
most significant congressional enactment regarding Indian
lands. The Act's overriding purpose is the protection of
Indian lands. It acknowledges and guarantees the Indian
tribes' right of possession and imposes on the federal
government a fiduciary duty to protect the lands covered
by the Act.
United States on behalf of Santa Ana Indian Pueblo v. University of
New Mexico, 731 F.2d 703, 706 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S.
11
853, 105 S. Ct. 177, 83 L. Ed. 2d 111 (1984) (citations omitted).
The Act applies to "any title or claim" to real property, including
nonpossessory interests. See United States v. Devonian Gas & Oil
Co., 424 F.2d 464, 467 n.3 (2d Cir. 1970) (Nonintercourse Act
applies to oil and gas leases); Mohegan Tribe, 528 F. Supp. at 1370
(Whether or not Connecticut held the fee to the land in question,
it could not alienate Indian land without the consent of the
federal government after the passage of the first Nonintercourse
Act in 1790"); Lease of Indian Lands for Grazing Purposes, 18 Op.
Att'y Gen. No. 583 (July 21, 1885) ("This statutory provision [§
177] is very general and comprehensive. Its operation does not
depend upon the nature or extent of the title to the land which the
tribe or nation may hold.").
The Nonintercourse Act protects a tribe's interest in land
whether that interest in based on aboriginal right, purchase, or
transfer from a state. See, e.g., Alonzo v. United States, 249
F.2d 189, 196 (10th Cir 1957) (grants made by governments of Spain
and Mexico and by purchase), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 940, 78 S. Ct.
429, 2 L. Ed. 2d 421 (1958); Joint Tribal Council of Passamaquoddy
Tribe v. Morton, 528 F.2d 370 (1st Cir. 1975) (grants by state);
United States v. 7405.3 Acres of Land, 97 F.2d 417, 422 (4th Cir.
1938) ([I]t makes no difference that title to the land in
controversy was originally obtained by grant from the state of
North Carolina."); see also, Oneida Indian Nation v. County of
Oneida, 434 F. Supp. 527, 538 (N.D.N.Y. 1977) (Nonintercourse Act
protects land reserved for tribe in treaty with New York prior to
12
passage of United States Constitution), aff'd, 719 F.2d 525 (2d
Cir. 1983), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 470
U.S. 226, 105 S. Ct. 1245, 84 L. Ed. 2d 169 (1985). As stated in
Alonzo:
[T]he reason for the imposition of the restrictions [set
forth in § 177] is in nowise related to the manner in
which the Indians acquired their lands. The purpose of
the restrictions is to protect the Indians . . . against
the loss of their lands by improvident disposition or
through overreaching by members of other races.
Alonzo, 249 F.2d at 196 (footnote omitted).
The Nonintercourse Act's prohibition is effective against
states, as well as private parties, who attempt to obtain tribal
land in violation of its provisions. See Mohegan Tribe v. State of
Connecticut, 528 F. Supp. 1359, 1364-65 (D. Conn. 1982). In this
regard, the Act reaches not only conveyances by a tribe, but also
any action by a state which purports to divest a tribe of an
interest in land. See Tuscarora Nation of Indians v. Power
Authority of New York, 257 F.2d 885, 893 (2d Cir. 1958)
(Nonintercourse Act applied to condemnation proceeding by state),
vacated as moot, 362 U.S. 608, 80 S. Ct 960, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1009
(1960); United States v. First Nat'l Bank, 56 F.2d 634, 635 (D.
Neb. 1931) ("The Omaha tribe owned its lands before Nebraska became
a state . . . . It is not competent for either the Congress by
legislation or the states by court decisions to impair those
rights."), aff'd, 59 F.2d 367 (8th Cir. 1932).
d. Does the Tribe have a claim to lands covered by the 1866 Act?
The Tribe's claim arises under Texas legislation, to which we
must apply Texas' rules of statutory construction. See Oregon ex
13
rel. State Land Bd. v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U.S. 363,
372, 97 S. Ct. 582, 588, 50 L. Ed. 2d 550 (1977) (holding state law
governs disputed ownership of lands). In determining the meaning
of the 1866 Act, our primary goal under Texas' rules of statutory
interpretation is to ascertain the intention of the legislature.
See, e.g., Jones v. Del Andersen & Assoc., 539 S.W.2d 348, 350
(Tex. 1976). This intention is to be ascertained from the language
of the statute itself, id., as of the time the law was passed,
Harris v. Ft. Worth, 180 S.W.2d 131, 133 (Tex. 1944), and further,
from the entire act and not from isolated portions of it. Calvert
v. Texas Pipe Line Co., 517 S.W.2d 777, 781 (Tex. 1974). The 1866
Act must be read in light of the circumstances and the public
policy prompting its passage. Austin v. Collins, 200 S.W.2d 666,
669 (Tex. Civ. App.--Ft.Worth 1947, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
The Tonkawas argue that the language in the 1866 Act
directing that the land "shall be set apart" is a mandatory
directive, revealing the legislature's intent to make a present
grant of the property. The Tribe also points out that the Texas
Legislature never repealed the 1866 Act or took any action
specifically addressing the land after the 1866 Act. The State
responds that "shall" is not necessarily mandatory, but may be
directory only. Lewis v. Jacksonville Bldg. & Loan Ass'n, 540
S.W.2d 307, 310 (Tex. 1976); Hunt v. Heaton, 631 S.W.2d 549, 550
(Tex. App.--Beaumont 1982), aff'd, 643 S.W.2d 677 (Tex. 1982).
"Provisions which do not go to the essence of the act to be
performed, but which are for the purpose of promoting the proper,
14
orderly and prompt conduct of business, are not ordinarily regarded
as mandatory." Lewis, 540 S.W.2d at 310. Because the essence of
the 1866 Act was to provide subsistence for the Tribe until such
time as the Federal government took the Tonkawas in charge and
provided for them, rather than to set apart particular real estate,
we conclude that the "shall" language in question was not
mandatory.
Next, the Tribe contends that the grant could have been
perfected solely through ministerial duties of the state, and that
it was therefore "self-executing and effective to grant the tribe
an equitable interest in the unappropriated public domain of the
state as it existed in 1866." The Tribe distinguishes what it
refers to as the self-executing nature of the grant from unsurveyed
land certificates. "A land certificate is merely the obligation of
the government entitling the owner of it to secure the designated
quantity of land by following the requirements of the law." New
York & T. Land Co. v. Thomson, 17 S.W. 920, 923 (Tex. 1891). The
owner of a land certificate had to affirmatively take steps to
locate the certificate to obtain any right to land. Not until the
land certificate was properly located did it vest either equitable
or legal title to land in the owner of the certificate. See Sledge
v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 340 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. Civ. App.--
Beaumont 1960, no writ) ("An un-located land certificate vests in
its holder no justiciable interest in any specific land."); Abbott
v. Gulf Prod. Co., 100 S.W.2d 722, 724 (Tex. Civ. App.--Beaumont
1936, writ dism'd w.o.j.). Under the 1866 Act, the Tribe was not
15
required to take any action to perfect its interest in the land
granted, but rather the burden of acting was upon the state.
The Tribe cites Hogue v. Baker, 45 S.W. 1004 (Tex. 1898), in
which the Texas Supreme Court held that a constitutional provision
establishing that one-half of the public domain of the state would
be allocated to the perpetual public school fund was self-
executing. The Court held that the provision conferred the school
fund with an equitable right to its share, even though the
legislature retained authority over the partition of the lands.
The State distinguishes Hogue, arguing that unlike a grant to
another party, Texas' grant to the public school fund was actually
a grant to itself which did not rest on the issuance of a patent.
We conclude that the language in the 1866 Act was not a self-
executing grant of land to the Tonkawas. The Act required action
by the State (designation of the location of the league of land) as
well as action by the Tribe (the making of a tribal homeland on the
designated land) in order for the Tribe to take benefit from the
grant. Because these two conditions were never fulfilled, the
grant was never perfected.
Finally the Tonkawas argue, citing Jones v. Meehan, 175 U.S.
1, 20 S. Ct. 1, 44 L. Ed. 49 (1899), that federal law conferred
them with an equitable interest in the land. In Jones, the Court
held that the reservation of land pursuant to a treaty created an
equitable title in the Chickasaw Indian tribe, even though the land
was not yet precisely located or surveyed. This analogy is
unpersuasive; the Chickasaws acquired an equitable interest through
16
a treaty with the United States supported by valid consideration.
Although the Texas Legislature recited the Tonkawas' past fidelity
to Texas and their indigency as the motivation for the 1864
Resolution, there is no evidence of bargained-for consideration
exchanged for an interest in land.
In sum, we hold that the grant was not mandatory or self-
executing, and vested no interest, equitable or otherwise, in the
Tribe. The purpose of the 1866 Act was to provide for the
surviving Tonkawa Indians until such time as the federal government
could provide for them. At the time of the enactment, Texas
considered this an obligation of the "central government," see § 2
of the 1866 Act, and even applied for reimbursement from the
federal government for sums expended out of the appropriation
contained in the 1866 Act. The fee was reserved to the state and
the Tribe was entitled to use of the land only so long as it served
as their homeland. It is clear that the Tribe's claim to the land,
as well as to the money and guns mentioned in the 1866 Act, was
extinguished when the Tribe was placed on the Oklahoma reservation.
The public domain, from which the potential grant would have been
carved out, was in fact later disposed of by various acts of the
Legislature, as required by the 1866 Act.
e. Does the Tribe have a Nonintercourse Act "claim"?
The Tonkawas assert that the language of the Act, which
prohibits the alienation "of lands, or any title or claim thereto"
(emphasis added) covers their "claim" although it is unvested. The
Tribe relies primarily on Oneida Indian Nation v. New York, 691
17
F.2d 1070, 1084 (2d Cir. 1982), where the Second Circuit concluded
that an Indian tribe's interest in land was covered by the Act even
though the land was unprotected by legal title. A crucial
distinction, however, lies in the fact that the Oneida tribe had a
possessory interest in the disputed land. Indeed, this is
consistent with the purpose of the Act, which was to protect Indian
tribes' aboriginal title to land on which they live. There being
no support for the Tribe's claim under Texas law, the Tribe's
proposed distinction between vested property rights and unvested
"claims" provides them no basis for recovery.
ELEVENTH AMENDMENT
The State filed a Motion to Dismiss in the district court
contending that the court lacked jurisdiction over this cause of
action because the suit was barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States. The district court, in its
Order on Motion to Dismiss, stated that the Eleventh Amendment bar
to suits against states is circumvented when: (1) the state has
waived immunity and consented to suit, Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S.
265, 276 n.10, 106 S. Ct. 2932, 92 L. Ed. 2d 209 (1986); (2)
Congress has clearly expressed its intent to abrogate or limit that
immunity through its legislative authority, Quern v. Jordan, 440
U.S. 332, 333-34, 99 S. Ct. 1139, 59 L. Ed. 2d 358 (1979); or (3)
the suit is instituted under a fiction which allows suits for
prospective injunctive relief against a state official in
vindication of a federal right, Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.
Ct. 441, 52 L. Ed. 714 (1908). The district court focused its
18
analysis on the second exception -- Congressional abrogation of
Texas' immunity from suit. The Tribe sought, through judicial
process, to enforce rights created by the Nonintercourse Act. The
district court found that Congress clearly intended to abrogate the
States' Eleventh Amendment immunity when it enacted the
Nonintercourse Act and had the power to do so under the Indian
Commerce Clause,4 citing Oneida Indian Nation of New York v.
Oneida, 719 F.2d 525, 543 (2nd Cir. 1983), aff'd in part and rev'd
in part on other grounds, 470 U.S. 266, 105 S. Ct. 1245, 84 L. Ed.
2d 169 (1985). The Tribe adopts the district court's position
below as its position on appeal as to the immunity question. The
State argues on appeal its contention that it was immune from suit,
but nevertheless contends that this Court need not reach the
questions of whether Congress abrogated Texas' Eleventh Amendment
immunity when it enacted the Nonintercourse Act and, if so, whether
Congress possessed the power to do so. We agree.
Even if Congress validly waived the State’s Eleventh Amendment
immunity here, the appellants have no claim for relief. Further,
because this case turns on the interpretation of a Texas Act with
narrow application, this precise immunity question is not likely to
recur so as to require appellate court guidance for district
courts. See Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n v. Jackson, 862 F.2d 491,
496-97 n.8 (5th Cir. 1988). We therefore decline to reach the
question of Eleventh Amendment immunity.
"The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce
with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the
Indian Tribes . . . ." U.S. Const. art I, § 8, cl. 3.
19
CONCLUSION
We affirm the district court's summary judgment in favor of
the State, and decline to reach the Tribe's argument premised on 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
AFFIRMED.
20