Here:
trust relationship
Federal Circuit Decides Wolfchild v. United States Appeal
Here are the materials:
33 United States Appellant Brief
90 Coursolle Descendants Answer Brief
122 Lower Sioux Community, Prairie Island, and Shakopee Amicus Brief
An excerpt:
The United States currently holds certain tracts of land in Minnesota in trust for three Indian communities. It originally acquired some of that land in the late 1800s, using funds appropriated by Congress to help support a statutorily identified group of Indians, and held it for the benefit of those Indians and their descendants for decades. As time passed, that beneficiary group and the three present-day communities that grew on these lands overlapped but diverged: many of the beneficiary group were part of the communities, but many were not; and the communities included many outside the beneficiary group. In 1980, Congress addressed the resulting land use problems by putting the lands into trust for the three communities that had long occupied them. Ever since, proceeds earned from the lands—including profits from gaming—have gone to the same three communities.
The discrepancy between the makeup of the three communities and the collection of descendants of the Indians designated in the original appropriations acts underlies the present dispute, which was before this court once before. Claimants allege that they belong to the latter group and that they, rather than the communities, hold rights to the land at issue and any money generated from it. Four years ago, based on an extensive analysis of the relevant laws and history, we rejected what was then the only live claim, which got to the heart of their assertion: that the appropriations acts created a trust for the benefit of the statutorily designated Indians and their descendants. Wolfchild v. United States, 559 F.3d 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2009). On remand, claimants advanced several new claims, some of which seek proceeds generated from the lands, others of which seek more. Again unable to
find that claimants have stated a claim that meets the standards of governing law, we now reject these new claims, including the one that the Court of Federal Claims held valid in the judgment we review.
Lower court materials here.
Blackfeet Housing Sues BIA over Failure to Maintain Storm Drains and Flood Damage
Here is the complaint in Blackfeet Housing v. United States (D. Mont.):
An excerpt:
9. During the winter of 2011, the Blackfeet Indian Reservation had significant snowfall. The streets in Browning were covered with snow, and huge snow banks were created from plowing. In June of 2011, Browning also had significant rainfall. Given the unusual amount of precipitation, Blackfeet Housing had many rental units with a significant amount of water in the basements. In order to address the magnitude of this problem, Blackfeet Housing sent an engineer to look at the homes and determine the reason for the flooded crawl spaces. He discovered that the storm drains were clogged, the water had nowhere to go, and as a result, the water was backing up into the homes. The water in some of the homes filled the entire crawl space. The result was significant damage to the structure of the unit.
10. Each year after the snow melt and spring storm, the neighborhood flooding will continue to increase in frequency, duration, and intensity until storm drain systems are cleaned and repaired.11. The storm drain and catch basic cleaning and repair is now well beyond the scope of routine maintenance.
12. Repair of residence flood damages is well beyond the scope of routine Blackfeet Housing house maintenance.
GTB Sues over Indian Health Services Contract Support Costs
Here is the complaint in Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. United States (D. D.C.):
Quapaw Tribe Congressional Reference Case Survives Motion to Dismiss
Here are the materials in Quapaw Tribe v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
Tenth Circuit Rules in Favoring of Trust Accounting Claims of Osage Headright Holders
Here are the materials in Fletcher v. United States:
An excerpt:
After settlers displaced the Osage Nation from its native lands, the federal government shunted the tribe onto the open prairie in Indian Territory, part of what later became the State of Oklahoma. At the time, the government had no idea those grasslands were to prove a great deal more fertile than they appeared. Only years later did the Osages’ mammoth reserves of oil and gas make themselves known. When that happened, the federal government appropriated for itself the role of trustee, overseeing the collection of royalty income and its distribution to tribal members. That role continues to this day. In this lawsuit, tribal members seek an accounting to determine whether the federal government has fulfilled the fiduciary obligations it chose to assume. The district court
dismissed the tribal members’ claims. We reverse.
Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to Cheyenne River Sioux Equitable Compensation Act
Here are the materials in LeBeau v. United States (D. S.D.):
32 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint
An excerpt:
Plaintiffs brought suit against the United States alleging claims for breach of trust obligations, breach of fiduciary duty, and accounting. The relief sought by plaintiffs is limited to declaratory and equitable relief. The United States moves to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint in its entirety, arguing plaintiffs lack standing, among other things. Plaintiffs resist the motion. For the following reasons, the motion is granted, and plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed without prejudice.
Update in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Salazar — Updated 9/27/13
The court has issued an opinion in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Salazar (D. D.C.):
From the order:
This matter is before the Court on Intervenor-Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Mot.”), Dkt. No. 58, at 2 (Mar. 26, 2012). Intervenor-Defendant also argues that it is a required party but that its joinder is precluded by sovereign immunity, id. at 21; for clarity the Court will construe this argument as a motion to join a required party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a)(2). Because the Court agrees that Intervenor-Defendant is a required party but not that its joinder is precluded by sovereign immunity, the motion to join a required party is GRANTED. Because the Court finds Intervenor-Defendant’s remaining arguments to be largely — but not entirely — without merit, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Materials are here.
Update — additional materials:
2013 09 20 Motion for Reconsideration
Gingold and Pearl: Tribute to Eloise Cobell
Dennis M. Gingold and M. Alexander Lowther (Pearl) have published “A Tribute to Eloise Cobell” in the Public Land & Resources Law Review.
The abstract:
Cobell v. Salazar, the landmark class-action case, and its settlement arise out of a painful period in American history. For more than a century, the government’s abuse of individual Indian trust beneficiaries has been documented in various government reports and has been debated in Congress, but nothing that Congress did or said stopped egregious breaches of trust committed by the executive branch. The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit noted that “[t]he General Accounting Office, Interior Department Inspector General, and Office of Management and Budget, among others, have all condemned the mismanagement of the Individual Indian Money trust accounts over the past twenty years.” Indeed, the government exploited the Individual Indian Trust as if those funds were its own, wholly disregarding both its statutory and common law trust obligations and the needs and interests of hundreds of thousands of impoverished Indians.
No one did anything to stop that abuse until Elouise Cobell stood up and told the government, “no more.” This Article relates the actions in equity taken by Elouise Cobell to compel the United States to conduct a full historical accounting of all IIM Trust funds, to correct and restate IIM account balances, to fix broken Trust management systems, and to undertake other critical trust reform measures to ensure prudent Trust Management, and examines its remarkable achievements.
Ninth Circuit Holds Interior Does Not Violate ISDEAA When Denying Law Enforcement Funds to PL280 Tribes
Here is the opinion in Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla & Capuño v. Jewell.
From the court’s syllabus:
The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians, and the court’s finding that the U.S. Secretary of the Interior violated the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection when the Secretary declined to enter into a self-determination contract with the Tribe to fund law enforcement on the Los Coyotes Reservation.
The panel held that the Secretary properly rejected the Tribe’s contract request. The panel also held that the Tribe’s reliance on the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act was misplaced because the Act allows the Tribe to take control of existing programs and obtain funds that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) would otherwise spend on those programs, but here there was no existing BIA program, and therefore nothing to transfer to the Tribe. The panel further held that the Administrative Procedure Act did not authorize the court to review the BIA’s allocation of law enforcement funding in Indian Country. Finally, the panel held that the BIA’s funding policy did not violate the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee.
And the briefs:
Lower court materials here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.