Rehnquist, C. J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
 No. 00-189
 IDAHO, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[June 18, 2001]
Chief Justice Rehnquist, with whom Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas
join, dissenting.
The Court makes out a plausible case for the proposition that, on the day Idaho was
admitted to the Union, the Executive Branch of the Federal Government had intended to
retain in trust for the Coeur d'Alene Indian Tribe the submerged lands under a portion of
Lake Coeur d'Alene. But the existence of such intent on the part of the Executive Branch
is simply not enough to defeat an incoming State's title to submerged lands within its
borders. Decisions of this Court going back more than 150 years establish this
proposition beyond a shadow of a doubt.
"[T]he ownership of land under navigable waters," it bears repeating, "is an incident of
sovereignty." Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 551 (1981). Recognizing this
important relationship, this Court "announced the principle that the United States held the
lands under navigable waters in the Territories `in trust' for the future States that would
be created." Utah Div. of State Lands v. United States, 482 U.S. 193, 196 (1987) (quoting
Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, 230 (1845)). That duty may not lightly be
disregarded, and, as the Court rightly observes, our inquiry "begin[s] with a strong
presumption against defeat of a State's title." Ante, at 9 (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted). Accordingly, "disposals [of submerged lands] by the United States
during the territorial period ... should not be regarded as intended unless the intention
was definitely declared or otherwise made very plain." United States v. Holt State Bank,
270 U.S. 49, 55 (1926); see also Montana, supra, at 552 ("[The Court] must not infer
such a conveyance unless the intention was definitely declared or otherwise made very
plain, or was rendered in clear and especial words, or unless the claim confirmed in terms
embraces the land under the waters of the stream") (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).
The Court makes three critical mistakes in its application of the equal footing doctrine
here­errors that significantly dilute the doctrine. First and foremost, the Court
misconceives the scope of historical events directly relevant to the question whether
Congress had, by July 3, 1890, acted to withhold title to submerged lands from the
entering State of Idaho. At the very moment that Idaho entered the Union "on an equal
footing with the original States," Act of July 3, 1890, ch. 656, 26 Stat. 215, Congress and
the President vested in Idaho the accoutrements of sovereignty, including title to
submerged lands. It is therefore improper for the Court to look to events after Idaho's
admission in order to discern whether Congress had months or years previously intended
to divest the entering State of its submerged lands. Indeed, I am aware of no case
applying the equal footing doctrine to determine title to submerged lands in which this
Court has looked beyond the moment of statehood for evidence of federal intent.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
 No. 00-189
 IDAHO, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[June 18, 2001]
Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court.
The United States brought this quiet title action against the State of Idaho. The question is
whether the National Government holds title, in trust for the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, to
lands underlying portions of Lake Coeur d'Alene and the St. Joe River. We hold that it
does.
I The Coeur d'Alene Tribe once inhabited more than 3.5 million acres in what is now
northern Idaho and northeastern Washington, including the area of Lake Coeur d'Alene
and the St. Joe River. 95 F. Supp. 2d 1094, 1095-1096, 1099-1100 (Idaho 1998).1
Tribal members traditionally used the lake and its related waterways for food, fiber,
transportation, recreation, and cultural activities. Id., at 1099-1102. The Tribe depended
on submerged lands for everything from water potatoes harvested from the lake to fish
weirs and traps anchored in riverbeds and banks. Id., at 1100.
Under an 1846 treaty with Great Britain, the United States acquired title to the region of
Lake Coeur d'Alene, see Treaty in Regard to Limits Westward of the Rocky Mountains,
9 Stat. 869, subject to the aboriginal right of possession held by resident tribes, see
generally Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y. v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 667 (1974);
F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 486-493 (1982 ed.). In 1867, in the face of
immigration into the Tribe's aboriginal territory, 95 F. Supp. 2d, at 1102, President
Johnson issued an Executive Order setting aside a reservation of comparatively modest
size, although the Tribe was apparently unaware of this action until at least 1871, when it
petitioned the Government to set aside a reservation, id., at 1102-1103. The Tribe found
the 1867 boundaries unsatisfactory, due in part to their failure to make adequate provision
for fishing and other uses of important waterways. When the Tribe petitioned the
Commissioner of Indian Affairs a second time, it insisted on a reservation that included
key river valleys because "we are not as yet quite up to living on farming" and "for a
while yet we need have some hunting and fishing." App. 27.
Following further negotiations, the Tribe in 1873 agreed to relinquish (for compensation)
all claims to its aboriginal lands outside the bounds of a more substantial reservation that
negotiators for the United States agreed to "set apart and secure" "for the exclusive use of
the Coeur d'Alene Indians, and to protect . . . from settlement or occupancy by other
persons." Id., at 33. The reservation boundaries described in the agreement covered part
of the St. Joe River (then called the St. Joseph), and all of Lake Coeur d'Alene except a
sliver cut off by the northern boundary. Id., at 33-34; 95 F. Supp. 2d, at 1095-1096.
Although by its own terms the agreement was not binding without congressional
approval, App. 36-37, later in 1873 President Grant issued an Executive Order directing
that the reservation specified in the agreement be "withdrawn from sale and set apart as a
reservation for the Coeur d'Alène Indians." Exec. Order of Nov. 8, 1873, reprinted in 1 C.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
IDAHO v. UNITED STATES et al.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT
 No. 00-189. Argued April 23, 2001­Decided June 18, 2001
 This suit involves a dispute between the United States and Idaho over the ownership of
submerged lands underlying portions of Lake Coeur d'Alene and the St. Joe River. The
Coeur d'Alene Tribe once inhabited vast acreage in and about what is now Idaho, and
traditionally used Lake Coeur d'Alene and the St. Joe River for food, fiber,
transportation, recreation, and cultural activities. In 1873, the Tribe agreed to relinquish
for compensation all claims to its aboriginal lands outside the bounds of a specified
reservation that included part of the river and virtually all of the lake. The agreement
required congressional approval, but President Grant set the land aside in an 1873
Executive Order, which set the reservation's northern boundary directly across the lake.
An 1883 Government survey indicated that the reservation included submerged lands.
When Congress neither ratified the agreement nor compensated the Tribe, the Tribe
petitioned the Government to make a proper treaty and Congress authorized negotiations.
In 1887, the Tribe agreed to cede its rights to all land except that within the Executive
Order reservation, and the Government promised to compensate the Tribe and agreed to
hold the land forever as Indian land. Still, Congress did not ratify the agreement. In 1888,
the Interior Secretary responded to a Senate enquiry about the reservation's boundaries,
reporting that the reservation appeared to embrace all but a small fragment of the lake's
navigable waters and that the St. Joe River flowed through the reservation. Also in 1888,
Congress approved a railroad right-of-way that crossed the reservation's navigable
waters, but directed that the Tribe's consent be obtained and that the Tribe be
compensated. Responding to a growing desire to obtain for the public an interest in
portions of the reservation, Congress authorized negotiations that produced a new
agreement in 1889, in which the Tribe agreed to cede the reservation's northern portion,
including two-thirds of the lake, for compensation. In 1890, the Senate passed a bill
ratifying the 1887 and 1889 agreements, but while the bill was pending in the House,
Congress passed the Idaho Statehood Act, admitting Idaho to the Union. In 1891,
Congress ratified the 1887 and 1889 agreements. The United States initiated this action
against Idaho to quiet title in the United States, in trust for the Tribe, to the submerged
lands within the current reservation. The Tribe intervened to assert its interest in those
lands, and Idaho counterclaimed to quiet title in its favor. The District Court quieted title
in the United States as trustee, and the Tribe as beneficiary, to the bed and banks of the
lake and the river within the reservation. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Held: The National Government holds title, in trust for the Tribe, to lands underlying
portions of Lake Coeur d'Alene and the St. Joe River. Pp. 9-18.
(a) Armed with the strong presumption against defeat of a State's title to land under
navigable waters, United States v. Alaska, 521 U.S. 1, 34, the Court looks to Congress's
declarations and intent when resolving conflicts over submerged lands claimed to be
reserved or conveyed by the United States before statehood, e.g., id., at 36. The two-step
enquiry used in reservation cases asks whether Congress intended to include submerged