Background The process of allotment started with the
General Allotment Act of 1887. By 1934, two-thirds of Indian land had converted to traditional private ownership (i.e., it was owned in
fee simple). Most of that had been sold by Indian allottees, often because they could not pay local taxes on the lands they were newly responsible for. The IRA provided a mechanism for the recovery of land that had been previously sold, including land that had been sold to tribal Indians. They would lose individual property under the law. John Collier was appointed Commissioner of the Indian Bureau (it is now called the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA) in April 1933 by President
Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He had the full support of his boss, Secretary of the Interior
Harold L. Ickes, who was also an expert on Indian issues. The federal government held land in trust for many tribes. Numerous claims cases had been presented to Congress because of failures in the government's management of such lands. There were particular grievances and claims due to the government's failure to provide for sustainable forestry. The
Indian Claims Act of 1946 included a requirement that the Interior Department manage Indian forest resources "on the principle of sustained-yield management." Representative
Edgar Howard of Nebraska, co-sponsor of the Act and Chairman of the House Committee on Indian Affairs, explained that the purpose of the provision was "to assure a proper and permanent management of the Indian Forest" under modern sustained-yield methods to "assure that the Indian forests will be permanently productive and will yield continuous revenues to the tribes."
Implementation and results The act slowed the practice of allotting communal tribal lands to individual tribal members. It did not restore to Indians land that had already been patented to individuals. However, much land at that time was still unallotted or allotted to an individual but still held in trust for that individual by the U.S. government. Because the Act did not disturb existing private ownership of Indian reservation lands, it left reservations as a
checkerboard of tribal or individual trust and fee land, which remains the case today. However, the Act also allowed the U.S. to purchase some of the fee land and restore it to tribal trust status. Due to the Act and other federal courts and government actions, more than two million acres (8,000 km2) of land were returned to various tribes in the first 20 years after passage. In 1954, the
United States Department of the Interior (DOI) began implementing the
termination and relocation phases of the Act, which had been added by Congress. These provisions resulted from the continuing interest of some members of Congress in having American Indians assimilate into the majority society. Among other effects, termination resulted in the legal dismantling of 61 tribal nations within the United States and ending their recognized relationships with the federal government. This also ended the eligibility of the tribal nations and their members for various government programs to assist American Indians. Of the "Dismantled Tribes" 46 regained their legal status as indigenous communities.
Constitutional challenges Since the late 20th century and the rise of Indian
activism over
sovereignty issues, as well as many tribes' establishment of
casino gambling on reservations as a revenue source, the
U.S. Supreme Court has been repeatedly asked to address the IRA's constitutionality. A controversial provision of the Act allows the U.S. government to acquire non-Indian land (by voluntary transfer) and convert it to Indian land ("take it into trust"). In doing so, the U.S. government partially removes the land from the state's jurisdiction, allowing activities like casino gambling on the land for the first time. It also exempts the land from state property and other state taxes. Consequently, many state or local governments opposed the IRA and filed lawsuits challenging its constitutionality. In 1995, South Dakota challenged the authority of the
Interior Secretary, under the IRA, to take of land into trust on behalf of the
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe (based on the
Lower Brule Indian Reservation) in ''South Dakota v. United States Dep't of the Interior'', 69 F.3d 878, 881-85 (8th Cir. 1995). The
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found Section 5 of the IRA to be unconstitutional, ruling that it violated the
nondelegation doctrine and that the Secretary of Interior did not have the authority to take the land into trust. The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) sought a U.S. Supreme Court review. But, as DOI was implementing new regulations related to land trusts, the agency asked the Court to remand the case to the lower court for reconsideration with the decision based on the new regulations. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the DOI's petition, vacated the lower court's ruling, and remanded the case back to the lower court. Seven months after the Supreme Court's decision to grant, vacate, and remand, the DOI removed the land in question from trust. The U.S. Supreme Court did not accept the
MichGO case for review, thus keeping the previous precedent in place. Additionally, the First, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals have upheld the constitutionality of the IRA. In 2008,
Carcieri v Kempthorne was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court; the Court ruled on it in 2009, with the decision called
Carcieri v. Salazar. In 1991, the
Narragansett Indian tribe bought of land. They requested that the DOI take it into trust, which the agency did in 1998, thus exempting it from many state laws. The State was concerned that the tribe would open a
casino or tax-free business on the land and sued to block the transfer. The state argued that the IRA did not apply because the Narragansett was not "now under federal jurisdiction" as of 1934, as distinguished from "federally recognized." In fact, the Narragansett had been placed under
Rhode Island guardianship since 1709. In 1880, the tribe was illegally pressured into relinquishing its tribal authority to Rhode Island. Some historians disagree that the action was illegal because, although not sanctioned by Congress, it was "desired" by the tribe members. The tribe did not receive federal recognition until 1983, after the 1934 passage of the IRA. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the State. In a challenge to the U.S. DOI's decision to take land into trust for the
Oneida Indian Nation in present-day
New York,
Upstate Citizens for Equality (UCE), New York,
Oneida County,
Madison County, the town of
Verona, the town of
Vernon, and others argued that the IRA is unconstitutional. Judge Kahn dismissed UCE's complaint, including the failed theory that the IRA is unconstitutional, on the basis of longstanding and settled law on this issue. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal.
Approval by tribes Section 18 of the IRA required that members of the affected Indian nation or tribe vote on whether to accept it within one year of the effective date of the act (25 U.S.C. 478) and had to approve it by a majority. There was confusion about who should be allowed to vote on creating new governments, as many non-Indians lived on reservations and many Indians owned no land there, and also over the effect of abstentions. Under the voting rules, abstentions were counted as yes votes, but in
Oglala Lakota culture, for example, abstention had traditionally equaled a no vote. The resulting confusion caused disputes on many reservations about the results. When the final results were in, 172 tribes had accepted the act, and 75 had rejected it. The largest tribe, the
Navajo, had been badly hurt by the federal
Navajo Livestock Reduction Program, which took away half their livestock and jailed dissenters. They strongly opposed the act, the chief promoter John Collier, and the entire Indian New Deal. Historian Brian Dippie notes that the Indian Rights Association denounced Collier as a "dictator" and accused him of a "near reign of terror" on the Navajo reservation. Dippie adds, "[h]e became an object of 'burning hatred' among the very people whose problems so preoccupied him." Among the Lakota, traditionalists criticised the IRA for imposing an alien constitutional order by the government and local 'mixed-blood' peoples against the traditionalist population. ==Legacy==