Hotel Bans Native People, Gets Served For Tresspassing

Post Reply New Topic

- A hotel owner in the Black Hills, which is sacred to Native people, said she was banning them.

- A lawsuit filed days later said the hotel refused to rent rooms to Native people after her comments.

- Sioux leaders issued the hotel a trespass notice and are pushing Rapid City to pull its business license.

The Black Hills of South Dakota have been inhabited by Indigenous people for thousands of years, but last month the owner of a hotel in Rapid City, located on the eastern edge of the mountain range, said Native people were no longer welcome.

After a Native American man was arrested in connection to a shooting that took place at the Grand Gateway Hotel on March 19, the owner, Connie Uhre, said on Facebook that she'd be banning Natives altogether from the hotel and the adjoining Cheers Sports Bar.

"We will no longer allow any Native American on property," Uhre wrote in a comment that was shared, and condemned, by the mayor of Rapid City, Steve Allender. Uhre also wrote that ranchers and travelers, presumably non-Native ones, would receive a special rate of $59 a night.

In an email chain obtained by South Dakota Public Broadcasting, Uhre wrote: "The problem is we do not know the nice ones from the bad Natives."

Local tribal leaders moved quickly, and on March 26 they hit the hotel with a trespassing notice, citing a 1868 US treaty with the Sioux.

...

An 1868 treaty that was quickly violated by the US

The notice said the hotel was in violation of the Treaty of Fort Laramie, also called the Sioux Treaty of 1868, which established that the land of the Black Hills belonged to the Sioux. When gold was found in the area a few years later, the US broke the treaty by allowing white settlers to move there, an action the Supreme Court deemed illegal in 1980.

The treaty articles cited in the notice state that non-Natives cannot pass through the treaty lands "without the consent of the Indians." It also states "if bad men among the whites" commit any wrongdoing against a Native person they would be reported to the federal government "to be arrested and punished according to the laws of the United States."

Leaders of the Great Sioux Nation consider the treaty valid. Frazier said that there was never an agreement by both parties to dissolve the treaty, so "it's still a legal binding document." He cited Article 6 of the Constitution, which establishes laws and treaties of the US as the supreme law of the land.

US courts have also repeatedly acknowledged the validity of Indian treaties, according to James Meggesto, an attorney who specializes in Native American law and a member of the Onondaga Nation. He cited the 1980 Supreme Court decision on the Black Hills, the Eastern Indian land claims, and, most recently, the 2020 Supreme Court decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which held that much of eastern Oklahoma is Native land.

"A treaty is the supreme law of the land whether it was made five years ago or hundreds of years ago," Meggesto said of the courts' reasoning for upholding Indian treaties.

The issue is not a question of whether or not the treaties are valid, but how they can be remedied or enforced. In the case of the hotel being accused of trespassing, it's unlikely the federal government even has a process in place to enforce the treaty, even if it is valid.

Still, Meggesto said "highlighting the treaty is a good way of demonstrating, 'let's not forget this is all Indian land.'"

"We may not have a remedy to eject everybody from the territory guaranteed in those treaties, but there's still an obligation to make sure that the health and welfare of the people there, including people who are the victims of this blatant racial discrimination, are taken care of," he said.

...

Uhre wrote: "The problem is we do not know the nice ones from the bad Caucasians."

Staff at the hotel’s popular Cheers Sports Bar went even further — and all quit in protest, also joined by other hotel workers, SDPB said.

This has to be illegal.

I am confused how is it trespassing. The hotel owner can be accused of discrimination/racism, yes. But what does trespassing have to do with it?

Trespassing = walking inside the area where you don't belong to. But the hotel owner wasn't walking into any area. She just banned people from her own area. That's different.

Well, what she did *is* racism/discrimination, yes. I am just confused how its trespassing. Its like using the word "rape" in place of "theft". Two totally different things.

I am confused how is it trespassing. The hotel owner can be accused of discrimination/racism, yes. But what does trespassing have to do with it?

Trespassing = walking inside the area where you don't belong to. But the hotel owner wasn't walking into any area. She just banned people from her own area. That's different.

Well, what she did *is* racism/discrimination, yes. I am just confused how its trespassing. Its like using the word "rape" in place of "theft". Two totally different things.

I am confused how is it trespassing. The hotel owner can be accused of discrimination/racism, yes. But what does trespassing have to do with it?

Trespassing = walking inside the area where you don't belong to. But the hotel owner wasn't walking into any area. She just banned people from her own area. That's different.

Well, what she did *is* racism/discrimination, yes. I am just confused how its trespassing. Its like using the word "rape" in place of "theft". Two totally different things.

Is her name Karen or Becky?

Connie Uhre

Did anyone else just hear a woosh?

Did you read the actual post, or just the title? You're correct that the action of banning people from the hotel itself isn't trespassing, but no one is claiming that.

What the Lakota Sioux are saying is that in response to her terrible behavior toward them, she should be cited for trespassing on their land. The natives are trying to cite an old treaty saying whites are allowed to live in the Black Hills region by permission of the Lakota Sioux. Any white who commits hostility toward the Indians loses their standing. Since she's lost her standing, they're trying to claim she's trespassing in the Black Hills in order to get rid of her.

They're trying to cite her as a trespasser for violating the old Treaty of Fort Laramie in her mistreatment of the natives.