trust relationship

Federal Court Holds US May Sell Unallotted Timber Resources over Opposition from Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Chickasaw Nation v. Dept. of Interior (W.D. Okla.):

254 Tribes Motion for Summary J

260-1 US Cross-Motion

266 Tribes Reply

269 US Reply

270 DCT Order

Here is the relevant statute authorizing (or mandating) the sale of the resource, as reproduced in the court’s order. Judge for yourself:

That when allotments as provided by this and other Acts of Congress have been made to all members and freedmen of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, Creek, and Seminole tribes, the residue of lands in each of said nations not reserved or otherwise disposed of shall be sold by the Secretary … under rules and regulations to be prescribed by him and the proceeds of such sales deposited in the United States Treasury to the credit of the respective tribes. . . . The Secretary … is hereby authorized to sell, whenever in his judgment it may be desirable, any of the unallotted land in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, which is not principally valuable for mining, agricultural, or timber purposes, in tracts of not exceeding six hundred and forty acres to any one person, for a fair and reasonable price, not less than the present appraised value. . . . Provided further, That agricultural lands shall be sold in tracts of not exceeding one hundred and sixty acres to any one person.

Quapaw Partially Prevails in Dispute over Undistributed Indian Claims Commission Judgment Funds

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

59 US Motion for Partial Summary J

66 Quapaw Cross-Motion

70 US Reply

72 Quapaw Reply

87 DCT Order

An excerpt:

In deciding the cross-motions for partial summary judgment on this issue, the Court considered at least two factors. Foremost, the Court notes that fact discovery was still ongoing in this case when the motions were filed. As of March 31, 2015, the Government anticipated producing over 452,000 document images to Plaintiff before the close of fact discovery on April 16,2015. Gov.’s Status Report, Dkt. No. 81, at 5. The Court declines to draw evidentiary conclusions when material facts are in dispute and ongoing discovery may yet shed more light on the issues. Second, the Court must consider the parties’ respective burdens. To prevail at the summary judgment stage, Plaintiff must sufficiently allege a breach of trust by the Government through affirmative evidence of nonpayment so that the finder of fact could not reasonably rule in favor of the Government. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249–50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The Court finds that the Government’s evidence of accounting records and meeting minutes sufficiently rebuts Plaintiff’s argument so as to create a continuing and genuine dispute. On the other hand, the Government has not convinced the Court that records of emptied Treasury accounts and presumptions of regularity are sufficient to decide this issue. Plaintiff’s evidence of meeting minutes and the conclusions of the Quapaw Analysis satisfy the Court, again, that the issue is in genuine dispute. Therefore, the Court denies both motions for partial summary judgment on the question of whether the Tribe is entitled to recover some or all of the trust funds.

We posted earlier on this matter here.

The Stranger on the Swinomish Tribe’s Fight against BNSF’s Railroad

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “How One Tribe Could Slow the Rate of “Bomb Trains” Through Seattle.”An excerpt:

The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community couldn’t have known that more than a century later, crude-oil trains would be rattling along that very route—and across reservation land—carrying with them a well-established risk of derailing and exploding. In fact, the only way today’s Swinomish people knew that trains full of crude oil were passing through their land was from media reports in 2012. They’re not alone. As it stands, railroads still don’t have to disclose crude-by-rail routes.

California Indian Law Association Files FOIA Suit over SG’s Confession of Error over Tee-Hit-Ton and Sandoval Cases

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the complaint in California Indian Law Association v. Dept. of Justice (D. D.C.):

2015-04-10 ECF 1 complaint

An excerpt:

On April 8, 2011, at the 36th Annual Indian Law Conference of the Federal Bar Association, in New Mexico, a video recording was presented to all attendees consisting of a speech by Neal Katyal in his capacity as the Acting Solicitor General of the United States (“ASG”) (hereinafter, “Katyal Speech”). The Katyal Speech involved an apology or confession of error for misrepresentations by the OSG to the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1913), and Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272 (1955), and background regarding United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, 131 S. Ct. 1723 (2011), and United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 131 S. Ct. 2313 (2011), which were both then pending before the Supreme Court.

Update:

For a limited time you can download the video of the presentation here.

US and Industry Defeat Challenge to Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon Mine

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Grand Canyon Trust v. Williams (D. Ariz.):

140-1 Plaintiffs Motion for Summary J

146-1 US Motion for Summary J

147-1 Intervenors Motion for Summary J

151 Plaintiffs Reply

155 US Reply

156 Intervenors Reply

166 DCT Order

An excerpt:

This case arises out of the proposed renewal of operations at the Canyon Mine in Northern Arizona. The Canyon Mine is a breccia pipe uranium mine located six miles south of Grand Canyon National Park, in the Kaibab National Forest, and four miles north of Red Butte, a culturally and religiously significant site for the Havasupai and other tribes.

Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona Sues United States for Breach of Trust

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the complaint in Inter-Tribal Council Of Arizona Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

1 Complaint

Hopi Tribe Trust Breach Claim re: Safe Drinking Water Fails in Federal Circuit

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Hopi Tribe v. United States.

An excerpt:

The Hopi Tribe filed suit against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims seeking damages to cover the cost of providing safe drinking water on the Hopi Reservation. In order to invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction, the Hopi Tribe must identify a statute or regulation imposing a specific obligation on the United States to provide adequate drinking water that would give rise to a claim for money damages. Because the Court of Federal Claims properly concluded that the Hopi Tribe failed to identify any source for a money-mandating obligation, we affirm

Briefs:

Hopi Tribe Brief

US Answer Brief

Hopi Reply

Lower court materials here.

 

CSKT Allotment Owner’s Trust Breach Claims Dismissed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Liberty v. Jewell (D. Mont.):

19 US Motion to Dismiss

24 Response

25 Reply

26 DCT Order

Tenth Circuit Briefs in Flute v. United States — Sand Creek Massacre Trust Accounting Claims

Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here:

Flute Opening Brief

US Answer Brief

Flute Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Yakama/Umatilla Prevail against Fish and Wildlife Service in Sacred Sites Question

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Fish and Wildlife Service (E.D. Wash.):

1 Complaint

49 Umatilla Motion for Summary J

50 Yakama Motion for Summary J

52 FWS Motion for Summary J

54 Yakama Reply

55 Umatilla Response

56 FWS Reply

60 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Although the NHPA and its accompanying regulations do not mandate a particular substantive outcome, its procedural requirements are obligatory. This Court would be derelict in its duties if it failed to enforce the minimal procedural protections guaranteed the Tribes. True, the Service, after reopening consultation with the parties, may reasonably conclude that the expanded program of wildflower tours will have no adverse effect on the Lalíik TCP. But this hypothetical cannot influence the Court’s current analysis. Instead, the relevant focus is whether the Service complied with the relevant statute and regulations: did the Service “stop, look, listen,” and carefully consider tribal input before moving ahead with the greatly expanded undertaking? Or, instead, did the Service stop, look at past tribal consultations on similar proposals, and inappropriately assume that each Tribe would merely voice its blanket opposition rather than providing additional insight to or suggested mitigation measures for the expanded undertaking? Because this Court concludes the latter occurred here, the only remedy is to set aside the Agency’s no adverse effect finding on the updated proposal and order the Service to reengage in the consultation process before conducting any additional wildflower tours within the Lalíik TCP, if it still chooses to pursue the undertaking.