Appellant Brief - Turtle Talk

and occupied the strip of land under apparent acquiescence of the Indian owners,
the railroad company did not have a valid right-of-way across Indian lands because
it did not meet the requirements in the relevant statutes and regulations. See id. at
698-99 (applying reasoning from Bunch v. Cole, 263 U.S. 250, 254 (1923) and
Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 463-65 (1926)). Even a good-faith use does
not convey a valid right-of-way or even a license. See id. “To give effect to an
invalid attempt to convey an interest in tribal lands in violation of the statute by
holding that it creates a license would undermine [the] purpose [of 25 U.S.C.
§ 177].” Id. at 698. Even if the State relied on the right-of-way, and compensated
the Indian landholders, these actions do not create a valid right-of-way where there
is none. And, the District Court cited no authority when it bolstered the right-of-
way’s validity with the State’s reliance and compensation to the landowners.
The Tribal Court assumes arguendo in Sections I and II that it conveyed to
the State the right to build, maintain, and use a highway over a section of land in
this case. However, the District Court found that no matter how little the Band
conveyed in that agreement, the Court will interpret the right-of-way as conferring
adjudicatory and regulatory jurisdiction over suits against nonmembers. The
District Court used an all or nothing analysis to find that any federally approved
right-of-way necessarily confers that type of jurisdiction to the State courts. If this
59