Case Citator › Ward v. Race Horse

Ward v. Race Horse

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
163 U.S. 504
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
20 of 20
Citing cases (total)
20
Treatment dates
1997–1999
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Ward v. Race Horse has been overruled in part and otherwise limited: all 20 flagged citations have been read, and the 2 confirmed treatments are listed below. Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians rejected Ward's equal-footing premise that treaty rights are irreconcilable with state sovereignty.
More on how this was screened

The Eighth Circuit separately confined Ward's reasoning to temporary treaty rights tied to land owned by the United States. The other citing opinions applied Ward, reported later treatment by another court, or presented arguments the court did not adopt. Duplicate copies of the 1997 Eighth Circuit opinion were read separately without creating duplicate entries.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

20 later cases cite Ward v. Race Horse; 20 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Ward v. Race Horse?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in Part

  • The Supreme Court rejected Ward's equal-footing holding that treaty rights are irreconcilable with state sovereignty, while addressing Ward's alternative treaty-intent holding separately.

    Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Race Horse rested on the premise that treaty rights are irreconcilable with state sovereignty. It is this conclusion — the conclusion undergirding the Race Horse Court’s equal footing holding — that we have consistently rejected over the years.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The Eighth Circuit confined Ward's rule to temporary treaty rights tied to hunting lands owned by the United States, distinguishing continuing usufructuary rights under the 1837 Treaty.

    Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. Minnesota · Eighth Circuit · filed

    Moreover, in Ward, the Court interpreted the treaty rights therein to secure the right to hunt in hunting districts on lands owned by the United States. See Ward, 163 U.S. at 509-10. Therefore, the Court found the rights to be tied to the United States’ ownership of the lands. In contrast, the rights secured to the Bands in Article 5 of the 1837 Treaty are in no way tied to ownership, but instead were intended to be continuing rights.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Ward v. Race Horse and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace