A recent statement by recording artist Billie Eilish at the Grammy Awards has ignited a national conversation about historical land ownership and the foundational principles of property law. Eilish declared, "No one is illegal on stolen land," echoing a sentiment that views all land not derived from an original indigenous title as stolen. This perspective challenges established legal doctrines and raises questions about the practicality of re-evaluating centuries-old land transfers.
Key Takeaways
- Billie Eilish's Grammy statement sparked debate on historical land ownership.
- Modern property law prioritizes stability and timely claims over ancient disputes.
- Reversing historical land transfers would create immense societal and economic disruption.
- Legal principles protect current owners, even if past acquisitions were imperfect.
The Historical Context of Land Claims
The idea of "stolen land" has gained traction in recent years, particularly in official acknowledgments. In 2022, Los Angeles County unanimously adopted a land acknowledgment. This resolution stated that the county occupies land originally inhabited by various indigenous peoples, including the Tongva, Tataviam, Serrano, Kizh, and Chumash Peoples.
The county's resolution also acknowledged that "settler colonization resulted in land seizure, disease, subjugation, slavery, relocation, broken promises, genocide, and multigenerational trauma." However, critics point out that these acknowledgments often simplify complex histories. They may overlook instances of inter-tribal conflict and conquest that occurred among Native American groups before European arrival. The Comanche, for example, engaged in fierce conquests across the southern Plains.
Understanding Land Acknowledgments
Land acknowledgments are formal statements recognizing the indigenous peoples who are the original stewards of the land on which an event or meeting is taking place. While intended to promote awareness and reconciliation, they do not legally alter land titles or ownership. Their primary purpose is symbolic and educational.
Legal Principles vs. Historical Grievances
The core of the debate lies in the tension between historical injustices and the stability of modern property law. Legal systems worldwide have developed mechanisms to ensure security in land ownership, even if the distant past involved conflict. Without such mechanisms, society would face constant instability.
Consider the implications of attempting to undo centuries of land transfers. Land that was once taken from one group has, over time, been conveyed to countless others. These subsequent owners have built homes, hospitals, and schools. They have invested in communities and infrastructure. An effort to reverse these transfers would involve trillions of dollars in payments and forced title shifts. This would destabilize every home mortgage, every mining and oil lease, and even every graveyard across the country.
"The effort to undo the past would involve trillions of dollars in transfer payments and coerced title shifts that would unsettle every home mortgage, every mining and oil lease, and every graveyard in the United States."
The Two Pillars of Property Law
Influential legal scholars have long articulated a bifurcated view of property law. One principle acknowledges that "neither fraud nor might can make a title where there wanteth right." This suggests that titles could theoretically remain perpetually open to challenge, regardless of how far back the original injustice occurred.
However, every functioning society also requires that people enjoy security in their property. They cannot live in constant fear of challenges based on events from centuries ago. Therefore, a second, equally important principle imposes strict limitations on when claims can be made. This principle aims to "automatically quiet all titles which are openly and consistently asserted, to provide proof of meritorious titles, and correct errors in conveyancing."
Statutes of Limitation
Statutes of limitation are legal deadlines for bringing a lawsuit. They exist to ensure that legal disputes are resolved in a timely manner, preventing indefinite uncertainty. For property claims, these statutes mean that even if land was acquired unjustly in the distant past, the ability to challenge that title expires after a certain period.
Modern Ownership and the Innocent Purchaser
It is easy to label land as "stolen," but what about the innocent individuals who acquired property in good faith over the centuries? Are they considered thieves? Billie Eilish herself reportedly owns a $3 million mansion in Los Angeles. The Tongva tribe has asserted that this land sits on their ancestral homeland. Under the "stolen land" theory, would Eilish be considered a thief?
Legal doctrines such as adverse possession and statutes of limitation are crucial here. These rules state that a claim must be made by a specific date, or the title becomes secure, regardless of how it was originally acquired. This prevents endless litigation and ensures societal stability. The concept of "prior in time means higher in right" is a theoretical ideal, but in the real world, practical matters of proof and reliance on established records take precedence.
The Doctrine of Jus Tertii
Another vital legal principle is jus tertii. This doctrine states that a trespasser cannot defend their actions by claiming the property actually belongs to a third party who is not involved in the current legal dispute. For example, if someone squats on a property, they cannot justify their trespass by saying the land actually belongs to an indigenous tribe from centuries ago, rather than the current legal owner.
- Prevents chaos: Without jus tertii, property ownership would be constantly vulnerable to challenges from any third party.
- Ensures security: This rule helps maintain secure ownership of property and even currency.
- Protects current owners: It prevents random individuals from seizing property based on ancient, unproven claims by others.
The Way Forward: Balancing History and Stability
Many historical land acquisitions, such as the purchase of Manhattan Island, were based on agreements, even if those agreements are viewed differently today. Establishing current ownership does not require a "time machine" to revisit every historical transaction. Modern legal systems recognize that at some point, titles must be considered settled to allow for commerce, development, and social order.
Celebrities like Billie Eilish often use their platforms to highlight social issues. However, the legal and societal implications of their statements can be far-reaching. The same legal doctrines that protect Eilish's own property from squatters or ancient claims also protect millions of Americans who own homes and businesses. These principles are fundamental to maintaining a stable society.
While acknowledging historical injustices is important, the wholesale re-evaluation of property titles based on claims stretching back centuries presents insurmountable challenges. Society must find ways to address historical grievances without dismantling the very foundations of modern property law, which ensures security and stability for all citizens.