Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
On Indigenous Peoples’ Day 2025, descendants of the Mdewakanton Dakota Sioux filed a federal lawsuit against the United States government, seeking tribal recognition and $5 billion in damages for the loss of ancestral land in Minnesota.
The case, filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, alleges that the federal government fraudulently dispossessed Sioux “half-breed” descendants of land near Lake Pepin, in violation of the 1830 Treaty of Prairie du Chien.
Attorneys say the claim could become one of the largest Indigenous land-restitution cases in modern U.S. history, potentially reshaping how courts interpret unratified Native-American treaties and federal-recognition law.
Attorney Erick Kaardal, representing the Sioux descendants, said the case was filed to restore and preserve the Dakota identity that federal policy erased.
His client Tom Smith, a Mdewakanton lineal descendant, stated that federal recognition would restore and preserve the Dakota identity of which these lineal descendants have long been deprived.
The complaint demands federal tribal recognition under Title 25 U.S. Code and financial compensation for about 500 square miles of land historically designated as the Lake Pepin Reservation along the Mississippi River Valley.
Filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(Tucker Act), the suit claims unlawful taking of treaty land and seeks declaratory relief confirming that the descendants constitute a continuous tribal entity.
Kaardal values the loss and deprivation of use at more than $5 billion, drawing comparisons to major Indigenous trust-claims cases such as Cobell v. Salazar.
At the heart of the dispute lies the 1830 Treaty of Prairie du Chien, which reserved about 320,000 acres west of Lake Pepin for mixed-heritage Dakota families.
Records from the Minnesota Historical Society show that in 1849 federal negotiators tried to purchase the land for $200,000, but the Senate rejected the treaty.
Two years later, the Treaties of Traverse des Sioux and Mendota (1851) ceded most Dakota territory—while quietly removing the Lake Pepin clause without the descendants’ consent.
The lawsuit also cites a 1970 Department of the Interior letter to Minnesota’s General Land Office that validated non-Indian land patents but ignored the Indian title rights established in 1830.
Plaintiffs argue this omission breached the federal government’s fiduciary duty and violated its trust obligations to Native descendants.
The Mdewakanton Dakota, central to this claim, descend from peoples who lived for thousands of years along the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers, fishing, harvesting wild rice, and hunting on the prairies.
Beginning in 1805, a series of U.S. treaties stripped away their homeland and imposed dependence on federal annuities.
After the Dakota War of 1862 culminating in the mass execution of 38 Dakota men at Mankato, the largest in U.S. history, Congress voided all Dakota treaties and exiled most survivors to Crow Creek (South Dakota) and Santee (Nebraska).
Some families remained in Minnesota, later forming communities at Morton, Prairie Island, Granite Falls, and the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) near Prior Lake.
After decades of persistence, the SMSC achieved federal recognition in 1969, restoring self-governance.
Under Chairman Norman Crooks, the tribe opened Little Six Bingo Palace (1982) and later Mystic Lake Casino Hotel (1992) transforming from poverty into one of America’s most economically successful tribal nations.
Today the SMSC employs more than 4,000 people, contributes hundreds of millions annually to Minnesota’s economy, and has donated over $115 million to charitable and tribal causes.
Their story underscores how Dakota resilience, sovereignty, and economic renewal continue to define Minnesota’s modern legal and cultural landscape.
The Court of Federal Claims will first determine whether it has jurisdiction and whether the case falls within statutory limits.
The Justice Department may raise defenses based on sovereign immunity or the statute of limitations.
If the court allows the claim to proceed, discovery could draw on National Archives and Senate treaty records, potentially revealing how treaty clauses were altered before ratification.
Legal scholars note that success could create a new judicial pathway for unrecognized tribes seeking federal acknowledgment through historical treaties rather than administrative petitions.
Related environmental and Indigenous rights disputes such as the Greenpeace defamation lawsuit over the Dakota Access Pipeline highlight how courts continue to weigh complex questions of sovereignty, free expression, and accountability in cases involving Native land and environmental protection.
Regardless of the outcome, the filing has reignited national attention to the enduring legal force of 19th-century treaties and the continuing fight of the Mdewakanton Dakota descendants for justice, recognition, and restitution.
What is the Treaty of Prairie du Chien?
Signed in 1830, the Treaty of Prairie du Chien set aside 320,000 acres near Lake Pepin, Minnesota, for Sioux “half-breed” descendants. The current lawsuit argues that this land was later taken without consent or compensation.
What are the Sioux descendants asking for?
The plaintiffs seek federal recognition of their tribe and at least $5 billion in damages for the loss of ancestral land originally protected under the 1830 treaty.
What does federal recognition mean for a tribe?
Federal recognition establishes a formal government-to-government relationship with the United States, granting sovereignty and eligibility for programs through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Health Service, and other agencies.
Why is this lawsuit being heard in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims?
That court has jurisdiction over monetary claims against the federal government, including breach-of-trust and treaty-violation cases involving Indigenous groups.
Has any similar case succeeded?
While few such claims have led to full recognition, past cases such as the Oneida Indian Nation land claims and the Cobell v. Salazar settlement have resulted in major compensation and legal reforms.
