Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock was a landmark Supreme Court case in which Lone Wolf, a principal chief of the Kiowa Nation, sought to prevent Congress from ratifying an agreement that allocated tribal lands. He contended that the agreement breached the Treaty of Medicine Lodge from 1867, which mandated that three-fourths of the adult male members of the tribe must consent to any land cession. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled against Lone Wolf, asserting that Congress held complete authority over tribal matters and that its actions were presumed to be made in good faith. The ruling implied that congressional decisions regarding Indian treaties were not subject to judicial review, a stance that has drawn comparisons to the infamous Dred Scott decision. While this precedent has not been overturned, more recent court rulings indicate that there are constitutional limitations to congressional power concerning Native American tribes, particularly regarding property rights and due process. This case underscores ongoing debates about tribal sovereignty, treaty rights, and the relationship between Indigenous nations and the federal government.
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock
Date: January 5, 1903
Citation: 187 U.S. 553
Issue: Native American treaties
Significance: The Supreme Court held that Congress had plenary authority over American Indian affairs and that Indian treaties were subject to unilateral abrogation.
Lone Wolf, one of the principal chiefs of the Kiowa Nation, sought an injunction to block congressional ratification of an agreement allotting tribal lands. He argued that the agreement violated the Treaty of Medicine Lodge of 1867, which required the approval of three-fourths of the adult men of the tribe for any cession of tribal land.
By a 9-0 vote, the Supreme Court rejected Lone Wolf’s claim. Justice Edward D. White’s opinion stated that Congress had exercised total jurisdiction over tribal affairs “from the beginning” and that the Court must presume the “perfect good faith” of the Congress. Observing that Congress had stopped entering into treaties with the tribes, he concluded that congressional modification or abrogation of Indian treaties was not subject to any judicial review. White did not even mention whether the due process principles of the Fifth Amendment applied in the case.
Although Lone Wolf has been called “the Indian’s Dred Scott,” the precedent has never been directly overturned. More recent decisions, however, would suggest that there are significant constitutional limits to congressional power over the tribes. This is especially true in regard to property rights and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.