The Oglala Sioux Tribe has initiated legal proceedings to acquire land at Wounded Knee, South Dakota, through the controversial mechanism of eminent domain. This action, prompted by the potential sale of the land to private buyers, raises complex legal questions surrounding tribal sovereignty, property rights, and the historical significance of the site. The Oglala Sioux Tribe Moves to Seize Wounded Knee Land Through Eminent Domain underscores the ongoing struggle to reconcile historical injustices with contemporary legal frameworks.
The genesis of this dispute lies in James Czywczynski’s decision to sell two parcels of land, totaling eighty acres, one located at Wounded Knee and the other at Porcupine Butte. His asking price of $4.9 million initially drew skepticism. However, as negotiations with potential buyers progressed, the Oglala Sioux Tribe took decisive action. On May 16th, the Tribal Council voted 14-0 to authorize a federal court filing to seize the Wounded Knee property under the principle of eminent domain. This bold move, while lauded by some as a legitimate exercise of governmental power, has ignited debate regarding its legal viability.
Eminent domain, a fundamental power inherent to sovereign governments, allows the seizure of private property for public use, even against the owner’s will. This power is typically invoked for projects that serve the broader public good, such as infrastructure development like roads, schools, or utilities. In the United States, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution mandates that "just compensation" be provided to the property owner when eminent domain is exercised. The rationale behind eminent domain is that the needs of the many outweigh the interests of the individual property owner, provided the individual is fairly compensated.
The Oglala Sioux Tribe’s claim to eminent domain authority stems from its own constitution. Article 4 grants the tribe the power to "purchase under condemnation proceedings in courts of competent jurisdiction, land or property needed for public purpose." This right is further reinforced by the Oglala Sioux Tribe Bill of Rights, which prohibits the taking of private property for public use without compensation. The tribe argues that acquiring the land at Wounded Knee serves a crucial public purpose, given its profound historical, cultural, and spiritual significance to the Oglala Lakota people.
However, the application of eminent domain in this case is fraught with legal complexities. A central challenge is the fact that the land in question is not tribal land held in trust by the federal government, and the current owner, James Czywczynski, is not a tribal member. This raises questions about the extent of the tribe’s jurisdiction over private property owned by non-members within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.
According to one anonymous federal Indian law attorney in Washington D.C., the tribe faces a formidable legal hurdle. The attorney suggested that allowing tribes to readily seize land from non-members through eminent domain could lead to the unchecked consolidation of tribal land bases, potentially undermining the property rights of non-Native landowners within reservation boundaries. The attorney emphasized that historically, tribal jurisdiction has been primarily respected when dealing with tribal land held in trust.
Conversely, some legal experts argue that the tribe does possess a legal basis for its action. Patrick Lee, a longtime tribal judge and law professor, contends that the land’s historical, cultural, and traditional importance to the tribe constitutes a valid public purpose. He also points to Tribal Ordinance 93-12, which establishes "implied consent" as the legal standard for tribal jurisdiction over non-members owning land or using property within the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. This ordinance suggests that by owning land within the reservation, non-members implicitly agree to be subject to tribal jurisdiction.
The concept of "implied consent" has been a subject of legal debate in Indian law. Prior to 1993, non-Natives operating businesses or owning land on the reservation typically submitted to tribal jurisdiction through expressed consent, either verbally or through written agreements. The shift to implied consent represents an attempt by the tribe to assert greater control over activities within its reservation boundaries.
The legal landscape surrounding tribal jurisdiction over deeded land on reservations is far from clear. Terry Pechota, a Rosebud Sioux Tribal member and practicing attorney, describes the situation as a "nightmare" for lawyers in the region. The extent to which tribes can exercise eminent domain remains an open question, particularly when it involves non-members and deeded land. The courts must consider local legislation, the status of the land (whether it is trust land or deeded land), and the specific venue where the case is filed.
Czywczynski, the landowner, is likely to argue that as a non-tribal member, tribal law does not apply to him, and that the tribe lacks the authority to seize his deeded land. He would likely cite Supreme Court precedents that limit tribal jurisdiction over non-members on fee land.
Before seizing the property, the tribe must initiate condemnation proceedings to determine "just compensation." This process would occur in a court of law, where Czywczynski would have the opportunity to challenge the tribe’s right to seize the land. The burden of proof would then fall on the tribe to demonstrate that the seizure is justified by a legitimate public purpose.
The determination of "just compensation" is another contentious issue. While American courts typically define it as "fair market value," the tribe argues that the cultural and historical significance of the land to the Oglala Lakota people far exceeds its appraised monetary value. Patrick Lee argues that Czywczynski is attempting to capitalize on the tribe’s cultural interest in the land. He suggests that the tribe could have the land appraised for its agricultural or grazing value, which would be more relevant to a non-Indian owner, and offer to purchase it at that price.
Czywczynski, however, maintains that the historical events that transpired at Wounded Knee – both the 1890 massacre and the 1973 occupation by the American Indian Movement (AIM) – significantly enhance the land’s monetary value. He views these events as globally recognized historical occurrences that should be factored into the land’s price.
The legal definition of "fair market value" typically considers what an unpressured buyer would voluntarily pay for the property. Courts may also consider the most profitable use of the property, regardless of its current use. Czywczynski claims to have multiple buyers willing to pay his asking price of $4.9 million, indicating a potential fair market value significantly higher than the appraised value. He believes that the property offers significant investment opportunities, which could create jobs and benefit the community. He expresses bewilderment at the tribe’s apparent inability to recognize these potential benefits.
The legal battle over the Oglala Sioux Tribe Moves to Seize Wounded Knee Land Through Eminent Domain is likely to be protracted and complex, with significant implications for tribal sovereignty, property rights, and the future of Wounded Knee. The outcome of this case could set important precedents for tribal jurisdiction over non-members and the use of eminent domain on reservations.
The case highlights the ongoing tension between the need to address historical injustices and the need to uphold the principles of private property rights. Wounded Knee is not merely a piece of land; it is a sacred site imbued with profound historical and cultural significance for the Oglala Lakota people. The tribe’s attempt to reclaim this land through eminent domain reflects a deep-seated desire to heal the wounds of the past and to preserve their cultural heritage for future generations. The Oglala Sioux Tribe Moves to Seize Wounded Knee Land Through Eminent Domain is a struggle for recognition, remembrance, and the right to determine their own future. The outcome of the Oglala Sioux Tribe Moves to Seize Wounded Knee Land Through Eminent Domain will be watched closely by tribes across the nation.