Cite as: 510 U. S. 399 (1994)
Blackmun, J., dissenting
the Interior to " 'sell and dispose' " of surplus Indian lands did not diminish the reservation.
In contrast, the only two cases in which this Court previously has found diminishment involved statutes and underlying tribal agreements to " 'cede, sell, relinquish, and convey to the United States all [the Indians'] claim, right, title, and interest' " in unallotted lands, DeCoteau, 420 U. S., at 439, n. 22, or to " 'cede, surrender, grant, and convey to the United States all [the Indians'] claim, right, title, and interest' " in a defined portion of the reservation, Rosebud, 430 U. S., at 591, n. 8. The Court held that in the presence of statutory language "precisely suited" to diminishment, id., at 597, supported by the express consent of the tribes, "the intent of all parties to effect a clear conveyance of all unallotted lands was evident." DeCoteau, 420 U. S., at 436, n. 16.7 I need hardly add that no such language or underlying Indian consent accompanies the statute at issue in this case.
II
A
The majority opinion relies almost exclusively on the fact that the Act of May 27, 1902, 32 Stat. 263, "restored [the unallotted lands] to the public domain" to conclude that the Uintah Valley Reservation was diminished. I do not agree that this ambiguous phrase can carry the weight of evincing a clear congressional purpose. We never authoritatively have defined the public domain, and the phrase "has no official definition. In its most general application, a public domain is meant to include all the land owned by a government—any government, anywhere." E. Peffer, The Closing
7 Other statutes have used express language of geographical termination. See 15 Stat. 221 ("the Smith River reservation is hereby discontinued") and 33 Stat. 218 ("the reservation lines . . . are hereby, abolished").
427
Page: Index Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007