 | This articlerelies largely or entirely on asingle source. Relevant discussion may be found on thetalk page. Please helpimprove this article byintroducing citations to additional sources. Find sources: "United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Co." – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(May 2021) |
| United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Co. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 12–13, 1941 Decided December 8, 1941 | |
| Full case name | United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company |
| Citations | 314U.S.339 (more) 62 S. Ct. 248; 86L. Ed. 260; 1941U.S. LEXIS 1124 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 114F.2d420 (9th Cir. 1940), cert. granted,312 U.S. 675 (1941) |
| Subsequent | Rehearing denied,314 U.S. 716 (1942) |
| Holding | |
| Aboriginal title is extinguished by legislation only with a clear intention. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Douglas, joined byunanimous |
| Laws applied | |
| Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; 10 Stat. 308 (1854); 13 Stat. 541 (1865); 14 Stat. 292 (1866); 16 Stat. 291 (1870) | |
United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Co., 314 U.S. 339 (1941), is aUnited States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the power of Congress to extinguish aboriginal title is plenary and nonjusticiable but that Congress was presumed not to do so absent a clear intention.[1] It is the leading precedent on the extinguishment ofaboriginal title in the United States.
The suit was brought by the federal government, on behalf of theHualapai against theSanta Fe Pacific Railroad. The Court held that the Hualapai'saboriginal title was not extinguished by (1) its lack of federal recognition or acknowledgment by treaty, statute, for formal government action; (2) the 1848Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (3) an 1854 federal statute creating the office of Surveyor General of New Mexico; (4) and 1865 statute creating theColorado River Indian Reservation; (5) the 1866 federalland grant to the railroad; (6) an 1870 federal statute creating the office ofSurveyor General of Arizona; or (7) the 1874forcible removal of the Hualapai to the Colorado River Indian Reservation.
However, the Court held that the 1881 creation of a reservation byexecutive order at the request of the Hualapai extinguished the tribe's aboriginal title outside of that reservation. The case distinguishedaboriginal title in California from aboriginal title in the rest of theMexican Cession and is frequently cited for its in-depth discussion of the test for the extinguishment of aboriginal title.
| Statutes |
| ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precedents |
| ||||||||||||
| By state | |||||||||||||
| Compare | |||||||||||||
