[16] Since the Treaty of Wolf River, this area has been the tribe's home, and they were free from state taxation, regulation and court jurisdiction.

[Note 5] During this period, the Menominee enjoyed complete freedom to regulate hunting and fishing on the reservation, with the acquiescence of Wisconsin.

[22] The federal government thought that termination would allow the tribal members to be assimilated into mainstream American culture, becoming hard-working, tax-paying, productive citizens.

[Note 6] The tribe, which owned utility companies, paid for a hospital, BIA salaries, local schools, and a stipend to tribal members.

[28] Menominee County was created out of the old reservation boundaries and the tribe immediately had to finance its own police and fire protection.

[32] In 1962, tribal members Joseph L. Sanapaw, William J. Grignon, and Francis Basina were charged with violating state hunting and fishing regulations.

The state was given leave to pursue a writ of error and appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to answer whether the Termination Act canceled those rights retained by treaty.

[35] In analyzing the case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court first had to determine whether the tribe had hunting and fishing rights under treaties with the United States.

[37] The Wisconsin Supreme Court placed special emphasis on the phrase "all statutes of the United States which affect Indians because of their status as Indians shall no longer be applicable to the members of the tribe, and the laws of the several States shall apply to the tribe and its members in the same manner as they apply to other citizens or persons within their jurisdiction.

"[38] The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the latter section was controlling, despite the tribal members' argument that hunting rights were retained by treaty rather than by statute.

In that decision, the Court of Claims had observed that the reason the tribe had agreed to the site of the reservation was that it was well suited for hunting, with plenty of game.

[45] Additionally, the Court of Claims observed that Congress also amended Public Law 280 so that Indian hunting and fishing rights were protected in Wisconsin.

The tribe argued that the Menominee Termination Act did not extinguish treaty rights, but instead had two purposes; to terminate federal supervision of the tribe and to transfer to the state general criminal and civil jurisdiction—which had already been accomplished by Public Law 280 and that law expressly preserved hunting and fishing rights.

Claiborne also argued that whatever regulatory rights which were held by the federal government were transferred to the state of Wisconsin by the termination act.

He argued that the Court of Claims ruling was incorrect and should be reversed, and that the tribe was due compensation from the federal government.

Douglas noted that Public Law 280 had been enacted and was fully in force for approximately seven years before the Termination Act became effective.

The section of that law that dealt with Wisconsin provided that hunting and fishing rights in "Indian Country" were protected from state regulation and action.

The Termination Act stated that all federal statutes dealing with the tribe were no longer in force, but Douglas noted that it was silent with regard to treaties.

Douglas found it hard to believe that Congress would subject the United States to a claim for compensation without an explicit statement to that effect.

Stewart acknowledged that the Wolf River Treaty unquestionably conferred hunting and fishing rights on the tribe and its members.

He stated that the Termination Act subjected the members of the tribe to the same laws that all other citizens of Wisconsin were held to, including hunting and fishing regulations.

Stewart did note that this would have also made the claim for compensation valid under Shoshone Tribe v. United States,[56] regardless of whether Congress intended it or not.

[57] Menominee Tribe v. United States is a landmark case in Native American law,[58] primarily in the area of reserved tribal rights.

[60] The decision in the case has affected subsequent legislation, such as the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, in which Congress expressly extinguished all aboriginal rights.

[63] A consistent point made in numerous articles is that while Congress may terminate tribal and treaty rights, it must show a "specific intent to abrogate them.