By Monica Wepking, Editor The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals panel on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 made it clear that a patchwork of 37,585 acres of trust land in Charles Mix County is Yankton Sioux Reservation and are subject to tribal and federal authority. Tom Tobin, a special attorney for Charles Mix County said, "The County and State clearly will be filing a petition for a re-hearing on this issue." "The YST did not win back their 1858 boundaries in this decision. And the panel in the court of appeals also rejected, as did the District Court, the two alternative boundaries submitted by the Tribe. " "The new boundaries, set by this panel, consists of dozens of mini-reservations-- a patchwork of land. The key point in this decision is express conflict with decades of decisions by the South Dakota Supreme Court." John Guhin, deputy state attorney general said, "We are still reviewing the decision to know precisely what it means." The state has 45 days from August 25, 2009 to take one of two potential steps: •Ask the full court of appeals to review the appeal panel's decision or • File a petition for certiorari--request to the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. "It's the policy makers (Governor Rounds and Attorney General Marty Jackley) decision as to how and if we proceed," said Guhin. "The State of South Dakota has been arguing for years that the Yankton Sioux Tribe (YST) Reservation was disestablished and that the Reservation just existed around the Tribal headquarters," said Charles Abourezk, YST Attorney. The federal appeals court panel affirmed a decision by U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Piersol that the following patchwork of lands (37,585 acres) are Indian Country : •Agency Trust Lands (913.83 acres), which are lands ceded to the United States in the 1894 Act but reserved for "agency, schools, and other purposes" which then were returned to the Tribe according to the 1929 Act. •Allotted Trust Lands (30,051.66 acres), which are lands allotted to members of the Tribe which have been continuously held in trust for the benefit of the Tribe or its members. This category includes allotments which were later transferred from individual to tribal control, so long as the trust status was maintained. •Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 Trust Lands (6,444.47 acres), which are lands acquired by the United States in trust for the benefit of the Tribe pursuant to the IRA. •Miscellaneous Trust Lands (174.57 acres), which are lands acquired by the United States in trust for the benefit of the Tribe other than pursuant to the IRA. Abourezk wanted to make it clear that non-Indian fee lands (lands ceded to the United States in the 1894 Act and subsequently opened to white settlement which have not been reacquired in trust; and nonceded lands originally allotted to tribal members but later transferred in fee to non-Indians and never reacquired in trust) "will not result in any drastic changes for non-Indians." Attorney Tobin disagrees. "According to the Circuit Court of Appeals panel any land acquired in fee after 1948 would also be in the Reservation. Non-Indians are involved here. Your property and life circumstances are, according to this ruling, subject to tribal and federal authority. This is a significant change in circumstances." If you have questions regarding this ruling Tobin suggested you contact Charles Mix County States Attorney Pam Hein at 605-487-7441. The State of South Dakota tried to suggest there would be chaos in law enforcement and other areas with Indian Country made-up of a patchwork of lands, the Eighth Circuit Court did not buy that argument. They found the record to show that there was a history of tribal-state-county cooperation. With this in mind Robert Cournoyer, Chairman of the Yankton Sioux Tribe said, "I am respectfully asking Governor Rounds and Mr. Jackley to now end the litigation and appeals, which are a drain on our respective budgets, and to focus our energies on working together, in a spirit of cooperation and good will, for the common good of our citizens." In response, Tobin said, "Cournoyer forgets to mention that it was the YST that filed these lawsuits and not the state and Charles Mix County."