Idaho v. United States and Coeur d’Alene Tribe
533 U.S. ___, 121 S.Ct. 2135 (2001)

Raymond C. Givens
Givens, Funke & Work
Coeur d’Alene, Idaho

Idaho v. U.S., 121 S.Ct. 2135 (2001), affirmed the Coeur d’Alene Tribe’s beneficial ownership of the submerged lands underlying picturesque Lake Coeur d’Alene and the St. Joe River within the Coeur d’Alene Reservation in northern Idaho. The United States had sued as the Tribe’s trustee to quiet title. The Tribe intervened. After a nine-day bench trial, the district court held that the submerged lands were held by the United States in trust for the Tribe. The 9th Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court affirmed 5-4.

This case applied existing principles from submerged land precedents: 1) ownership of submerged lands are identified with the sovereign power of government, 2) submerged lands generally pass to new states at statehood because they enter the union on "equal footing" with the original 13 states, 3) Congress has the authority to convey or reserve submerged lands during the territorial period, but there is a strong presumption against it, and 4) the ultimate question is one of federal intent. See Idaho v. U.S., 121 S.Ct. at 2142 (citing Utah Div. of State Lands v. U.S., 482 U.S. 193 (1987), Montana v. U.S., 450 U.S. 544 (1981), U.S. v. Alaska, 521 U.S. 1 (1977), U.S. v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49 (1926), Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. U.S. (1918), and Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1 (1884)).

The Court concisely articulated the test developed for submerged lands cases "[W]e undertake a two-step enquiry in reservation cases. We ask whether Congress intended to include land under navigable waters within the federal reservation and, if so, whether Congress intended to defeat the future State’s title to the submerged lands." Id. at 2143. The Court held that "the two-step test of congressional intent is satisfied when an Executive reservation clearly includes submerged lands, and Congress recognizes the reservation in a way that demonstrates an intent to defeat state title." Id. The consideration is "whether Congress was on notice that the Executive reservation included submerged lands, and whether the purpose of the reservation would have been compromised if the submerged lands had passed to the State." Id. (internal citations omitted).

Idaho did not dispute the facts on appeal. A pre-statehood Executive Order established a Reservation which Idaho conceded was understood by all to include the lake and river. Later pre-statehood Agreements affirmed and reduced this Reservation, but these Agreements were not ratified by Congress until a few months after Idaho statehood. Thus, the crucial issue in Idaho v. U.S. was whether Congress intended the submerged lands to be part of the Reservation at statehood and when it ratified the Agreement, or whether they automatically passed to Idaho at statehood under the "equal footing" doctrine.

The Supreme Court found that pre-statehood congressional communications with the executive branch and pre-and post-statehood congressional actions established that Congress had intended to include the submerged lands in the Reservation and intended to defeat Idaho’s title to the submerged lands. See id. at 2146-47.

In the view of the four dissenters: 1) congressional intent should have been determined only at the moment of statehood, not by surrounding events; 2) only statutes should have been considered to determine such intent; and 3) references to "navigable waters" did not mean "submerged lands." See id. at 2147-50 (Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting).

This case did not make new submerged land law. It may, however, breathe new life into Indian disclaimer clauses in which states disclaimed ownership of or jurisdiction over Indian lands at statehood – but that remains to be seen. Compare id. at 2141 with id. at 2149 fn. 2 (Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting). Possibly the most noteworthy aspect of this case is that it demonstrates how difficult it is for an Indian tribe to prevail in the states-rights era of the current Supreme Court. The Coeur d’Alene case had strong facts that fit well with existing precedents. The District Court’s factual findings were undisputed on appeal. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals decisions were strong. The two parties to the Agreements under review, the Tribe and the United States, were on the same side, both arguing the Agreements reserved the submerged lands for the Tribe. There were no conflicting decisions from other courts. It is surprising that certiorari was even granted and it is equally surprising that the ultimate decision was 5-4. Nevertheless, the case is a significant win in an otherwise bleak Supreme Court term for Indian tribes and the United States as tribal trustee.

Raymond C. Givens is a partner in Givens, Funke & Work in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, and represented the Coeur d’Alene Tribe in Idaho v. U.S. and Coeur d’Alene Tribe.