Tribe Asks For Recognition

Leadership in the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate (SWO) tribal government went before the South Dakota Interim State-Tribal Relations Committee June 26 in Pierre to advocate the state recognize the tribal boundaries and urge Congress to re-establish the reservation across District 1, including portions of Marshall County.

Lake Traverse Reservation is a triangle across northeastern South Dakota into southeastern North Dakota with the tip of the triangle extending to just north of Watertown. Even though the reservation is listed on maps, the reservation was technically terminated by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1975.

District 1 Senator Mike Rohl, who is on the committee, explained the question being raised was whether the State of South Dakota would express its support in re-establishing the Lake Traverse Reservation. While South Dakota can express its support for re-establishment, only an act of the U.S. Congress can accomplish the SWO’s goal.

“I do think it’s important to note that the SWO are our neighbors and fellow Americans. I obviously respect their autonomy and them as a people. Congress has granted SWO the right to purchase back the land they sold in 1891, within their original 1867 treaty boundaries, but the 1975 Supreme Court ruling was very clear on this topic,” Rohl said in a statement. “Overturning almost 135 years of precedent could have significant consequences for non-tribal members that have called Day, Marshall and Roberts counties home for generations under the jurisdiction of the state of South Dakota. This resolution as written would ask Congress to transfer that jurisdiction to the tribal government.”

He said if the reservation is established across the 1867 boundaries this would impact everyone living within those boundaries and the counties.

“If Congress did re-establish the tribal boundaries this would have major impact on county and local governments,” Rohl said. “Counties would lose property tax revenue as those properties would no longer be on the county tax roll. People would no longer be subject to South Dakota courts or government and would be represented by the tribal government and tribal courts.”

Besides impacting property rights and taxes additional changes would impact business licensing, hunting/fishing licenses and public health mandates. If the Lake Traverse Reservation was re-established the eastern portion of Day County would be impacted including the east side of Blue Dog Lake, all of Enemy Swim Lake and Pickerel Lake.

Rohl noted compensation was promised to the tribes in the reservation for their support during the Sioux Wars in the early 1860s. Members of the tribes acted as scouts. Chief Justice of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate Supreme Court Angelique EagleWoman argued at the meeting the tribe was never compensated properly for the scouting work it did.

“The SWO has gotten the bad end of the stick through the years. Whether it was not being paid for their scout work during the Sioux Wars in the 1860s, potentially being lied to during treaty negotiations or if the translator lied to them,” Rohl said. “Right now, they are facing a long shot in the South Dakota Legislature, and I am not supporting the proposed resolution at this time.”

According to Eaglewoman’s presentation, the Lake Traverse Reservation was established by a treaty in 1867 in the Dakota Territory. Rohl agreed with EagleWoman’s presentation that the main issue revolves around the 1891 Dawes Act. Whether members of the reservation were compensated for their work during the Sioux Wars, along with ceding the rest of the land of the reservation to white settlement and therefore terminating the tribe.

“The treaty was ratified by both parties,” Rohl said. “The treaty said land not allotted to members of the tribes was ceded back to the United States for white settlement and the termination of the tribe.”

The issue about termination came about in the 1975 U.S. Supreme Court case DeCoteau v. District County Court in which a mother challenged the State of South Dakota’s authority to seize her children within reservation boundaries. In a 6-3 decision the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the 1891 Dawes Act had terminated the reservation and tribal jurisdiction was limited to what land it held in trust. EagleWoman argued in her presentation before the committee there was no wording about changing the reservation or its boundaries in the 1891 Dawes Act.

In the dissenting opinion of the DeCoteau decision, justices argue the tribe has been treated by Congress and the U.S. Department of Interior as having jurisdiction over the entire reservation lands. This includes a 1966 constitution of the SWO which was approved by the U.S. Department of Interior. “The jurisdiction of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe shall extend to lands lying in the territory within the original confines of the Lake Traverse Reservation as described in Article II of the Treaty of Feb. 19, 1867,” it states.

Rohl said proponents are relying on the dissenting opinion of DeCoteau in putting forth arguments in favor of a resolution, along with the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in McGirt v. Oklahoma which ruled lands of the Five Civilized Tribes were never disestablished by Congress as part of the Oklahoma Enabling Act of 1906.

According to Rohl, District 1 Representative Tamara St. John will be leading the fight in the 2024 South Dakota Legislature to pass the resolution.

“Even if it does pass the South Dakota Legislature, which is not a given, it still needs to pass Congress,” Rohl said. “Even if we do pass a resolution only Congress has the authority to re-establish the SWO Reservation.”

Check back in next week’s Journal for the second part of this topic, including a response by South Dakota District 1 Rep. Tamara St. John.