Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa v. Cummins

Background

The Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa challenged a 2017 land exchange involving the United States Forest Service and Poly Met Mining, Inc. The Forest Service transferred title to the proposed NorthMet Mine site to PolyMet, and PolyMet transferred four tracts of private land to the Forest Service. The site was within territory that the Band had ceded to the United States under the 1854 Treaty of LaPointe.

Article 11 of that treaty reserved hunting and fishing rights in the ceded territory for qualifying Chippewa Indians. The Band alleged that the land exchange caused a loss of access to 6,650 acres of public land for exercising its treaty rights.

Motion and Standing Analysis

PolyMet moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the Band did not have standing. Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury, a connection between that injury and the challenged conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable decision would remedy the injury. PolyMet argued that the treaty rights belonged to individual Band members rather than to the Band itself and that the Band had not identified a member who used the exchanged property while it was public land.

The court rejected that argument. It explained that Indian treaties generally reserve rights to tribes rather than individual members, particularly when property rights are involved. Reading the 1854 Treaty in light of its language, history, and the federal courts’ treatment of similar treaty rights, the court concluded that Article 11 reserved tribal hunting and fishing rights. The phrase referring to Indians who resided in the ceded territory identified the relevant bands rather than creating rights held only by individual members.

The court distinguished cases involving environmental organizations that asserted recreational or aesthetic interests in public land. The Band was asserting its own sovereign treaty rights, which the court characterized as rights in the nature of a property interest. The court concluded that the alleged physical reduction of the scope of those treaty rights was enough to establish an injury for standing purposes.

Disposition

The court held that the Band had standing and that the court therefore had jurisdiction over the challenge. It denied PolyMet’s motion to dismiss. The opinion also states that PolyMet’s separate laches argument was denied without prejudice for the reasons given at the hearing. The final order expressly denies PolyMet’s motion to dismiss the complaint.