trust relationship – Page 56

Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Eastern Shawnee Tribe’s CFC Claims

November 5, 2011November 4, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished, summary order in Eastern Shawnee Tribe v. United States. It was on remand from a GVR (grant, vacate, remand) from the Supreme Court (docs here). The Tribe had petitioned the Supreme Court before the United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation decision.

Winnebago Tribe CFC Claims Dismissed under U.S. v. Tohono O’odham

October 30, 2011October 27, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Winnebago Tribe v US

Osage Trust Suit Settlement

October 22, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From BLT here.

Another Tohono O’odham Dismissal: Red Cliff Band v. US

October 18, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here (a month old now) is the opinion in Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

Red Cliff Band v US

Government Reply Brief in United States v. Ray Motion for Reconsideration

October 13, 2011October 13, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

US Reply in Ray

Well, the government tempered its complaint about having to go to the federal court by citing the government’s trust duties under United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation. Seems to be an enormous amount of confusion. Jicarilla is a backdoor repudiation of the trust relationship, not the strong directive to protect tribal property. Whatever.

Earlier materials are here.

They Keep Falling: Cheyenne River Sioux and Stillaguamish Claims Dismissed under Tohono O’odham Decision

October 13, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are those opinion from the Court of Federal Claims:

CRST v US

Stillaguamish v US

Omaha Tribe’s Claims a Victim of SCT’s Decision in Tohono O’odham

October 12, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Omaha Tribe v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

Omaha Tribe Supplemental Brief re TON Decision

US Response to Omaha Brief

DCT Order Dismissing Omaha 1500 Complaint

Federal Circuit Revives Part of Samish Indian Nation Damages Claims against US in Federal Recognition Case

September 20, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here is today’s opinion in Samish Indian Nation v. United States.

An excerpt:

The issues on appeal before this court are ones of statutory construction. We must decide whether certain claims are premised on money-mandating statutes and are therefore within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a), and the Indian Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1505. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the claims brought by the Samish Indian Nation (“Samish”) because some of their allegations were not premised upon any statute that was moneymandating, and the allegations reliant on moneymandating statutes were limited by other statutes. We affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ decision that it lacked jurisdiction over some of the Samish’s allegations because the Tribal Priority Allocation (“TPA”) system is not money-mandating. We conclude, however, that the trial court’s ability to provide a monetary remedy under the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 (“Revenue Sharing Act”) is not limited by operation of the AntiDeficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341. We therefore reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the Samish’s Revenue Sharing Act allegations and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Here are the briefs:

Samish Appellant Brief

Brief for the United States

Samish Reply

Lower court materials here.