• Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 - This case limits Native American land ownership. Supreme Court ruled that title granted by the U.S. is superior to a previously held title to property by Native Americans. This case is useful for the basic property rights of Native Americans to their land, including sacred sites. 
• Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 - U.S. Supreme Court stated that states could not impose laws on Native American land as they are sovereign nations. Superseded by statute in Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe. This important case established that Native American reservations had a right to govern themselves, impose their own laws, and have some freedom. 
• Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272 (1955). Aboriginal title of land is extinguished by the Federal Government and this is not a compensable property right under the Fifth Amendment. Court decided there was no right to compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Thus, Native Americans can loose their land without compensation. 
• Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. United States, 182 Ct. Cl. 543, 390 F. 2d 686 (1968). The Court comes up with the  "substitution of assets" test in order to determine if there is a Fifth Amendment "taking" of Native American land. Did the Congress make "a good faith effort to give the Indians the full value of the land and thus merely transmutes the property from land to money?" Unsurprisingly, the court rules in favor of U.S. policies and against Native Americans. 
• Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. United States, 231 Ct. Cl. 193, 684 F.2d 852 (1982). "The court held that the Indians were entitled to recovery from the government in an action over loss of water from a nearby river that was diverted from their reservation by upstream users." The government must provide water or divert their actions. Government is limited to providing water required to water agriculture. This had a profound impact on Native American water and land rights, as many Native Americans use water for religious and sacred ceremonies and believe bodies of water are ancestors, alive, and must be kept pure.
• Apache Survival Coalition v. United States, 21 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 1994).  National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”) to the Forest Service's issuance of a special use permit associated with the building of a telescope atop Mt. Graham. The United States prevailed because they had consultation with tribes, even though they went against the express wishes of the tribes. Again, tribal wishes on sacred lands was not respected. 
• Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476 (D.C. Cir. 1995) - United States has the right to not bring a suit for water rights claim on behalf of one tribe and prosecute a water rights claim on behalf of another. The U.S. can do this without going against their trust responsibility. Thus, the government can choose which tribe to help and which to ignore, even though they have a Trust responsibility. 
• Bonnichsen v. United States Corps of Engineers, 969 F. Supp. 628 (D. Or. 1997).  Eight scientists demanded a 9,300 year-old human remains as a matter of right. The human remains were of Native American origin, and surrounding tribes wished to have their ancestor back and bury him/her according to their religion. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act applied. Tribes were denied their ancestor. The scientists won! This was against the wishes of the tribes. 
• United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465 (2003) - Indian tribe sued United States, seeking money damages for the United States' alleged breach of fiduciary duty to manage land held in trust for the tribe that was occupied and used by the United States. The court affirmed the judgement allowing the suit to go forth. This allowed the tribes to make U.S. government accountable for breach of fiduciary duty in land and buildings which are owned by Natives, held in trust, but used by the U.S. government without any maintenance. 
• More cases can be found on: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/significant-indian-cases 

• Pinoleville Pomo Nation, et al. v. Ukiah Auto Dismantlers, et al, No. C07-02648 SI (N.D.Cal.,Dec.03,2007) 35 ILR 308 - Clean Water Act upheld. 

• PIT RIVER TRIBE v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; United States Bureau of Land Management; Calpine Corporation, Defendants–Appellees. - Native American tribe filed claims against Bureau of Land Management,  Forest Services, and Department of Interior, alleging that leasing procedures of land violated the tribe's religious and cultural preferences. The judge stated the tribe had no standing to pursue claims. 

• United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544 (1975), "which dealt with the issue of federal and tribal power to regulate the sale of liquor by non-Indians within an Indian reservation, the Court stated the following about tribal sovereignty and tribal territory." 

"Indian tribes are unique aggregations possessing attributes of sovereignty over both their members and their territory.... Indian tribes within ‘Indian Country’ are a good deal more than ‘private, voluntary organizations’...."

• Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 (1981) - "right of tribes generally to tax non-Indians who do business on tribal land."
• United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978) - "Tribal sovereignty is inherent and exists unless and until Congress takes it away." 

"The powers of Indian tribes, are, in general, ‘inherent powers of a limited sovereignty which has never been extinguished." United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. at 322.

• Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959) - "states have no jurisdiction over civil court actions arising on an Indian reservation and brought by a non-Indian against an Indian, the Court explained the principle that, of the three branches of the federal government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial), only the legislative branch – Congress – has the power to divest or limit tribal sovereignty." 

McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) -" A landmark United States Supreme Court case which ruled that, as pertaining to the Major Crimes Act, much of the eastern portion of the state of Oklahoma remains as Native American lands of the prior Indian reservations of the Five Civilized Tribes, never disestablished by Congress as part of the Oklahoma Enabling Act of 1906." 

Seminole Nation v. United States, 1942 - The federal Indian trust responsibility is a legal obligation under which the United States “has charged itself with moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust” toward Indian tribes. 

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) - Trust responsibility first discussed by Chief Justice John Marshal.

• Native Americans are "domestic, dependent nations" 
• Right of Occupancy Discussion
• Federal Government has an interest in protecting Native American tribes. 

United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians (1980) - There was a treaty which stated that the Native Americans would have "absolute and undisturbed use and occupation" of their lands. The government allowed the settlers to take the land from Native Americans. 

Lone Wold v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 - Example of the trust responsibility. "Court held that Congress possessed a paramount power over the property of Native Americans, by reason of its exercise of guardianship over their interests, and such authority could be implied, even though opposed to the strict letter of a treaty with them."

Cobell v. Salazar (D.D.C. 1990) - There was a breach of the trust responsibility. The U.S. government managed the money royalties from Native American land and mismanaged the funds. There was a money settlement in 1990. 

Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n, 485 U.S. 439 (1988) - "The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision and remanded the case when the Court found that the First Amendment did not preclude petitioners from completing a road or from permitting timber harvesting on Indian religious grounds because those religious practices must yield to some higher consideration." Here, the Native American tribal religion was centered on a plot of land with timber. They believed their Gods lived there, their ancestors, and their religion would not exist without this land. The Supreme Court ruled that taking the timber would be bad to tribal religion, it was "incidental" and not a "coercion" on their religion. 

• First Amendment (Freedom of Religion) did not allow the tribe to succeed.
• This is a landmark case for tribes not being successful in using the First Amendment in their arguments for sacred land or religion. 
• American Indian Religious Freedom Act was not enforced. 

United States v. Friday, 525 F.3d 938 - A ban on using Bald eagle feathers invades the Native American sacred religious practices. 

"By enacting a law banning the taking of eagles and then permitting religious exceptions, the government has tried to accommodate Native American religions while still achieving its compelling interests. That accommodation may be more burdensome than the Northern Arapaho would prefer, and may sometimes subordinate their interests to other policies not of their choosing. Law accommodates religion; it cannot wholly exempt religion from the reach of the law."

Wilson v . Block, 708 F.2d 735 - Native American tribe Hopis and Navajos believed that the mountains housed their God and Creator, and that commercial use was prohibited. Government wanted to sell their land, against their wishes, to a private developer, under the trust responsibility. The court allowed the government to sell the land. 

"The court found that the Indians had not proved that the government's proposed land use would impede a religious practice that was not capable of being performed at another site given the introduction of expert testimony indicating that the expansion would have little "direct" impact." 

The four cases in which AIRFA failed were: (1) Sequoyah v. T.V.A. [620 F. 2d 1159 (1980)], a Cherokee effort to stop the Tennessee Valley Authority from flooding the Little Tennessee River above the Tellico Dam; (2) Badoni v. Higginson [638 F. 2d 172 (1980)], a Navajo effort to reduce the water level of Lake Powell and restrict tourists’ access to the Rainbow Bridge area in southern Utah; (3) Frank Fools Crow v. Gullet [706 F. 2d 856 (1983)], a Lakota effort to stop the state of South Dakota from expanding a parking lot in Bear Butte State Park in the Black Hills; and (4) Wilson v. Block [708 F. 2d 735 (1983)], a Hopi and Navajo attempt to preclude expansion of the Arizona Snow Bowl ski area in the San Francisco Peaks, near Flagstaff.