The Narragansett land claim was one of the first litigations of aboriginal title in the United States in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida (1974), or Oneida I, decision.Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. County of Oneida (Oneida I), 414 U.S. 661 (1974). The Narragansett claimed a few thousand acres of land in and around Charlestown, Rhode Island, challenging a variety of early 19th century land transfers as violations of the Nonintercourse Act, suing both the state and private land owners.Jarboe, 2010, at 407 n.72.

Judge Raymond James Pettine of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted the Narragansett's motion to strike the state's affirmative defenses and denied the state's necessary party motion and motion to dismiss. Altogether, the court rejected the state's defenses of: sovereign immunity, laches, statute of limitations/adverse possession, estoppel by sale, operation of state law, and public policy.

After the decision, Congress settled the claim with the Rhode Island Claims Settlement Act (RICSA), the first of many Indian Land Claims Settlements, extinguishing all aboriginal title in Rhode Island in exchange for $3.5 million. The Narragansett claim was "the first of the eastern land claims to be settled.", 1988, at 26. The Narragansett received federal recognition in 1983 and have unsuccessfully attempted to establish a Native American gaming enterprise.

Background

The Narragansett tribe was "one of the most powerful tribes in New England" before settlers arrived in Rhode Island. The tribe was defeated in King Philip's War in 1675. The Rhode Island legislature passed a "detribalization" law in 1880.

In re Narragansett Indians (R.I. 1898) The Rhode Island Senate asked the Rhode Island Supreme Court to issue an advisory opinion on the law's constitutionality; the opinion summarizes much of the tribe's land and other dealings with the state up until that point.In re Narragansett Indians, 40 A. 347 (R.I. 1898). Additionally, the Senate certified the questions of: whether certain quitclaim deeds executed by the tribe were valid; whether the state could acquire valid title under the 1880 law; whether the tribe was abolished by the law; and whether those to whom the state conveyed title under the 1880 law had valid title.Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 347–48. The court upheld the statute and answered all the questions in the affirmative.Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 373.

The court began with an attack upon the Narragansett's status as indigenous:

The people in Rhode Island, in our day, calling themselves Narragansetts, are, properly speaking, not Narragansetts at all, but, at best, only a decayed remnant of the Niantics, a tribe tributary to the Narragansetts, with whom the survivors of the latter took refuge after the Great Swamp Fight; the less celebrated tribe adopting and being known thenceforward by the more famous name of their once powerful neighbors, the Narragansetts.Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 348.

Next, the court reviewed the power of a sachem to conclude a land conveyance, remarking that they exercised "absolute monarchie over the people."Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 348–49. The court next quoted extensively from Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in Johnson v. McIntosh (1823).Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 349—50 (quoting Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823)). By comparison, the court claims, Roger Williams "denied the justice of the white man's laws as to Indian lands [which] very largely ignored the right of the Indian."Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 350. The court quoted with approval Williams' claim that the land of Rhode Island was not "purchased or obtained" but rather obtained from "Cannonicus but by gift."Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 351 (quoting 1 R. I. Col. Rec. 25). Only out of a desire to avoid conflicts with neighboring colonies, the court proceeds, did Williams obtain a royal charter for Rhode Island in 1643 or 1644.Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 351.

Exemplifying Roger Williams

The court next reviews a 1644 document by which the Naragansett's purported to "submit, subject, and give over ourselves, peoples, lands, rights, inheritances, and possessions whatsoever, in ourselves and our heires successively forever, unto the protection, care and government" of the King of England.Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 351–52. The court did not claim this document affected the Narragansett's land title.Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 352 ("We fail to perceive, however, what effect it could have had upon the title to their lands. ... "); id. ("[T]his submission did not affect the Indians' title as against the English crown, yet the design of the instigators of that submission was to protect the Narragansetts from the aggressions of the United Colonies."). The court reviews the text of the royal charter, rebutting the argument that the charter was "evidence that the crown recognized the Indian title as paramount to their own."Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 352–54.

The court details the opposition of Williams and Rhode Island to the 1659 Atherton purchase from the Narragansett (through the sachem Coginaquand) by settlers from Connecticut.Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 354 ("[Williams] informed Atherton when he first came into Narragansett that his purchasing would be contrary to law."). The same group of settlers in September 1660 demanded and received another tract from the Narragansett's as punishment from some "injuries alleged."Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 354 ("[T]he validity of this mortgage and delivery turned wholly on the question of jurisdiction. If the jurisdiction of Narragansett belonged to Rhode Island, then these proceedings were illegal and void; and they were always so regarded by the Rhode Island government. If it belonged to Connecticut or Plymouth, the case would have been different."). The Atherton purchase was re-recited in 1662. A 40-year dispute between Rhode Island and Connecticut followed over whose territory (and royal charter) included the Narragansett lands.Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 354–55. Due to the expenses of this dispute, the opinion claims, the Rhode Island legislature in 1707 authorized a survey to identify vacant Naraggansett lands.Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 355. In 1709, Rhode Island obtained some sort of conveyance to nearly all the vacant lands, which were within the area claimed by Connecticut.

The opinion next reviews the Rhode Island statutes which prohibited the acquisition of Indian lands without the consent of the colony.Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 356 (citing 1 R. I. Col. Rec. 236, 403; Pub. Laws R. I. 1719, p. 3). Two such ratifications occurred in 1659Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 356 (citing 1 R. I. Col. Rec. 418). and 1682.40 A. at 356 (citing Pub. Laws R. I. 1719, p. 35). From 1713 to 1773, a variety of legislation was passed regarding the lands of Ninigret.Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 356–58. Due to the succession disputes following Ninigret's death, the legislature modified the prohibition to require the approval of a certain tribal counsel and a committee of the legislature in 1779.Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 359. Controversial conveyances occurred in 1800, 1803, 1811, 1813, and 1818—plus "many others."Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 360 ("Notwithstanding the solemn declaration made that no more Indian lands would be allowed to be sold on any pretense whatever, votes were passed from time to time authorizing the sale of the common lands, as well as individual's lands."); id. ("Laws of varying character were from time to time passed in the fruitless endeavor to keep the Indians in possession of their lands."). From 1718 to 1840 various laws were passed exempting the Narragansett's from various forms of taxation, barring most suits against Narragansetts, and so on.Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 360–61. In 1840 an Indian commission was appointed whose responsibilities included overseeing further conveyances of land.Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 361. According to the court:

The hold of the Narragansetts, even in civil matters, grew more and more feeble, and they gradually became more and more dependent upon the state, until their moribund condition as a tribe became apparent even to themselves. ... For at least 30 years before the passage of [the 1880 law under review], it was apparent that the Narragansett tribe had become extinct in all but name. Its members had even ceased to be red men, for their complexions had been darkened by the plentiful infusion of negro blood, or bleached by the admixture of blood from Caucasian veins.Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 361–62.

The Committee and its formation

In 1852, a committee was formed to consider proposals to terminate the Narragansett's tribal status, which was suggested in 1857, 1859, and 1866.Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 362. The 1880 law was a result of this process.Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 362–63. The act called for the purchase of all remaining tribal lands and reservations, dissolved the tribe, and ended all law's conferring special legal status on Narragansetts.Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 363. The opinion briefly considers the mentions of Indians in the Articles of Confederation and United States Constitution and finds no obstacle to the 1880 act in those texts of the U.S. Supreme Court's jurisprudence up to that time.Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 367–71. Regarding Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the court remarks:

Some of the reasoning in the foregoing opinion seems to us faulty and not well grounded. ... It is a very strained interpretation to say that the power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes, even in combination with the treaty-making power, carries with it the power to appropriate title to land belonging to the states, an ultimate title, resembling in some respects a reversionary interest; a title not even belonging to the Indians, though underlying the Indian title. Regulation is not appropriation.Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 371 (citing Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832)).

Finally, the court opined that the act might even have been valid if the Narragansett's were federally recognized:

Be all that as it may, however, it seems to be recognized that a time may arrive when a tribe of Indians may become so degraded or reduced in numbers as to lose the power of self-government, and that then the local law must from necessity be extended over them. ... Even if the Narragansetts had ever been recognized by the United States as a tribe of Indians, it would seem as if the state would be authorized, by the necessities of the case, to take action.Narragansett Indians, 40 A. at 372.

Litigation

Narragansett I Two lawsuits by the Narragansett against the State of Rhode Island (C.A. No. 750005) and private landowners (C.A. No. 750006) were consolidated in front of Judge Pettine.Narragansett Tribe of Indians v. S. R.I. Land Dev. Co. (Narragansett I), 418 F. Supp. 798, 802 (D.R.I. 1976). The tribe claimed aboriginal title to lands in and around Charlestown, Rhode Island, and that any title claimed by the defendants would violate the Nonintercourse Act.Narragansett I, 418 F. Supp. at 802.

Motion to strike