Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1955 · Property

348 U.S. 272 (1955)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyIndian titleaboriginal occupancyrecognized titleFifth Amendmentjust compensationAlaskatimber

Facts

The petitioner was an identifiable group of Alaska Indians, a clan of the Tlingit Tribe, claiming compensation under the Fifth Amendment for timber taken from a large area of land they allegedly owned or occupied. In 1947 Congress authorized sale of Tongass National Forest timber notwithstanding any claim of possessory rights, while expressly providing that the resolution neither recognized nor denied such claims. In 1951 the Secretary of Agriculture contracted to sell merchantable timber from the area claimed by petitioner. The Tee-Hit-Tons argued that their long use and occupation, along with federal statutes, gave them either full ownership or a recognized permanent right of possession sufficient to require compensation.

Issue

Whether the Tee-Hit-Tons' aboriginal occupancy of Alaskan land, without congressional recognition of ownership or permanent occupancy, constituted a compensable property interest under the Fifth Amendment when the United States authorized sale of timber from that land. Also, whether the cited Alaska statutes recognized such rights so as to make the interest compensable.

Rule

Indian occupancy of land that has not been specifically recognized as ownership or permanent occupancy by Congress creates only a permissive right of occupancy, not a compensable property interest. Compensation is required only where Congress, by treaty or other authorized action, has definitely intended to accord legal rights in land, not merely to preserve the status quo or permit continued occupation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

For centuries, the Red Bluff Band hunted, fished, and maintained seasonal camps on a large tract near Ketchikan, Alaska. Congress later authorized a federal agency to lease gravel extraction rights on the tract, but no treaty, patent, reservation, or statute had ever granted the band permanent rights in the land.

If the band sues the United States for just compensation under the Fifth Amendment, what is the strongest argument for the government?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, Indian occupancy not specifically recognized by Congress as ownership or permanent occupancy is merely permissive occupancy. That interest may be extinguished by the United States without a legally enforceable duty to pay compensation. The Court expressly said the result is not based on lack of standing, and it did not hinge on individual ownership.