A bill to provide for the equitable settlement of certain Indian land disputes regarding land in Illinois, and for other purposes.

This bill establishes a specialized legal mechanism to resolve a long-standing land dispute between the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma and the United States regarding territory in Illinois that traces back to the Treaty of Grouseland of 1805. The legislation creates an extraordinary one-time opportunity for the Miami Tribe to bring a claim in the United States Court of Federal Claims that would otherwise be barred by statutes of limitations and laches defenses. In exchange for this jurisdictional window, the bill extinguishes all other potential land claims the tribe might have to Illinois territory, creating a comprehensive final settlement framework. The legislation represents a congressional determination to provide a definitive resolution mechanism for historical treaty-based land disputes while simultaneously foreclosing future litigation on related claims.

The bill grants the United States Court of Federal Claims exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma's land claim arising from the Treaty of Grouseland executed on August 21, 1805. This jurisdictional grant operates without regard to the statute of limitations codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2501 and explicitly bars the United States from asserting any defense based on laches or delay in bringing the claim. The jurisdictional window is strictly time-limited, requiring the Miami Tribe to file its claim within one year of the Act's enactment date. As a critical quid pro quo, the legislation extinguishes all other claims the Miami Tribe might possess to lands in Illinois, except for the specific claim authorized under this Act. This comprehensive claim extinguishment provision operates as a complete bar to any future litigation regarding Illinois lands outside the narrow parameters established by this legislation.

The United States Court of Federal Claims serves as the sole implementing authority for this legislation, with responsibility for receiving, adjudicating, and rendering final judgment on the Miami Tribe's claim. The court must apply its standard procedures for claims against the United States, modified only by the specific waivers and limitations contained in this Act. No additional federal agencies are designated for implementation roles, as the legislation creates a purely judicial mechanism. The one-year jurisdictional window operates automatically from the date of enactment without requiring regulatory promulgation or administrative action. The Miami Tribe bears the burden of timely filing within the statutory deadline, and failure to do so results in automatic extinguishment of the claim along with all other potential claims to Illinois lands. No funding appropriations are included, as the Court of Federal Claims operates under existing judicial branch appropriations.

The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma is the sole direct beneficiary of the jurisdictional grant, receiving an unprecedented opportunity to litigate a claim that would otherwise be time-barred. However, the tribe faces significant risk, as failure to file within one year or an adverse judgment on the merits results in permanent extinguishment of all land claims to Illinois territory. The State of Illinois and current landholders in the affected areas benefit from the comprehensive claim extinguishment provision, which provides finality and certainty regarding land titles after resolution of the authorized claim. The federal government gains a mechanism to resolve a long-standing historical dispute while limiting future exposure to related claims. Cost implications depend entirely on the outcome of litigation, with potential liability ranging from zero if the tribe does not prevail to substantial monetary damages or land transfers if the claim succeeds. The legislation contains no sunset provision, as the claim extinguishment operates permanently regardless of whether the tribe files within the one-year window.

The legislation rests on Congress's plenary power over Indian affairs under the Indian Commerce Clause and its authority to waive sovereign immunity and establish federal court jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution. By conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims, Congress invokes the Tucker Act framework for claims against the United States while creating specific exceptions to standard limitations periods. The waiver of the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2501 represents an exercise of Congress's authority to define the scope of consent to suit against the federal government. The claim extinguishment provision operates as a legislative settlement of potential claims, exercising Congress's broad authority over Indian lands and treaty obligations. Judicial review follows standard Court of Federal Claims procedures, with appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and potential Supreme Court review. The legislation does not preempt state law directly but may affect state land titles depending on the outcome of the authorized claim. No regulatory implementation is required, as the Act is self-executing through the judicial process.

The legislation raises significant constitutional questions regarding Congress's authority to extinguish tribal land claims as a condition for providing access to judicial review. The comprehensive claim extinguishment provision may face challenge under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause if courts determine it constitutes an uncompensated taking of property rights. The one-year filing deadline creates substantial implementation challenges for the Miami Tribe, which must conduct extensive historical research, legal analysis, and case preparation within a compressed timeframe. The waiver of laches defenses fundamentally alters the normal equitable considerations in claims involving centuries-old disputes, potentially disadvantaging the United States and current landholders who have relied on settled expectations. Cost implications remain highly uncertain, as a successful claim could result in substantial monetary damages or complex land transfer arrangements affecting numerous current property owners in Illinois. The legislation creates potential unintended consequences by establishing a precedent for other tribes with historical land claims, potentially opening the door to similar jurisdictional grants for time-barred claims nationwide. Opposition arguments focus on the unfairness of reviving ancient claims, the disruption to settled land titles, and the precedential risk of encouraging other tribes to seek similar legislative relief for otherwise barred claims.