In this case the argument is that Congress never actually explicitly legislated the original Muscogee Creek reservation out of existence.
The examples you listed don't appear to be similar.
The examples you listed don't appear to be similar.
I don't see how that would be effected by the Congress. If Congress allocated land to the natives, but then the natives sold it (I assume not of fair grounds, but still...) then the Congress cannot return the land to the natives.
The question is, does allotment of tribal land dissolve a reservation without a clear statement by Congress, when the Supreme Court has already ruled that a "clear statement" is required. That has nothing to do with the examples you mentioned earlier.
Do you believe that means that non-Native American ownership of plots on (re-recognized) reservation land will be reverted?
Because I didn't get that from the article at all. In fact, it says:
> An entire body of law already governs states’ relationships to tribes and those tribes’ relationship to non-Indian residents. Half the states in the union have reservations, and the majority of those have reservations that — thanks to allotment — have non-Native owned “fee land” where tribal jurisdiction is already limited. Reservations comprise 27 percent of the land in Arizona, and it functions just fine.
It also points out that this happened two years ago in favor of the Omaha Tribe, which also non-Native residents.
It appears, therefore, that the question isn't one of ownership but jurisdiction.