Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
The three confirmed limits are listed below, including the Supreme Court's holding in Delaware Tribal Business Committee v. Weeks that Indian legislation remains open to Fifth Amendment review.
61 later cases cite Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock; 61 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 Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock?
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
Limited
-
A court held that Lone Wolf did not bar review of Fifth Amendment challenges to a congressional distribution of tribal property.
Weeks v. United States · W.D. Okla. (three-judge court) · filed
Without doubt, plenary authority has been exercised by Congress from the beginning over tribal relations of the Indians and the power has been deemed a political one, not subject to control by the judicial department. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 565, 23 S.Ct. 216, 47 L.Ed. 299; see also National Indian Youth Council v. Bruce, 485 F.2d 97, 99 (10th Cir.). However, we are cautioned that “[m]uch confusion results from the capacity of the ‘political question’ label' to obscure the need for case-by-case inquiry.” Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 210-11, 82 S.Ct. 691, 706, 7 L.Ed.2d 663. As in other contexts, there is no blanket rule as to justiciability where legislation affecting the status of Indians is challenged.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court held that Lone Wolf's statement against judicial control does not preclude Fifth Amendment equal protection review of Indian legislation.
Delaware Tribal Business Committee v. Weeks · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
The statement in Lone Wolf, supra, at 565, that the power of Congress “has always been deemed a political one, not subject to be controlled by the judicial department of the government,” however pertinent to the question then before the Court of congressional power to abrogate treaties, see generally Antoine v. Washington, 420 U. S. 194, 201-204 (1975), has not deterred this Court, particularly in this day, from scrutinizing Indian legislation to determine whether it violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
A court applied a good faith and trust duty inquiry to congressional spending of tribal funds despite Lone Wolf's broad statement of plenary power.
Red Lake Band v. United States · United States Claims Court · filed
Courts have attempted to harmonize the holdings of Lone Wolf and Creek Nation by developing a good faith effort test. ... The court therefore examines the legislative history, including committee reports and statements submitted to Congress by government officials underlying congressional authorization to expend monies from the Red Lake Band’s share of the Nelson Act funds in order, initially, to determine whether Congress made a good faith effort to act for the benefit of the Band in authorizing these expenditures.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock 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