Here (a month old now) is the opinion in Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
trust relationship
Government Reply Brief in United States v. Ray Motion for Reconsideration
Here:
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
Omaha Tribe’s Claims a Victim of SCT’s Decision in Tohono O’odham
Here are the materials in Omaha Tribe v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
Federal Circuit Revives Part of Samish Indian Nation Damages Claims against US in Federal Recognition Case
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:
Lower court materials here.
Federal Government and Cherokee Nation Responses to Cherokee Freedmen Motion to Enjoin Principal Chief Election
Here are the updated materials in Vann v. Salazar (D. D.C.):
Cherokee Nation Response to Vann Motion
The Vann motion is here.
Claims to Benefits from Table Mountain Rancheria Restoration Dismissed
Here are the materials in Lewis v. Salazar (E.D. Cal.):
61 – Memorandum Order Granting Motions to Dismiss With Prejudice
50.1 – Tribal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss SAC
52.1 Salazar – MPA re Motion to Dismiss SAC
53 – Opposition to TribalDefendants Second Motion To Dismiss
54 – Opposition to Salazar’s Second Motion To Dismiss
Goodeagle v. U.S. — Complaint for Trust Damages for Mismanagement of Quapaw Assets
Here is that complaint, filed in the Court of Federal Claims: Goodeagle v. US Complaint
An excerpt:
This is a lawsuit for money damages arising from Defendant’s breach of fiduciary and trust obligations owing to Plaintiffs, Grace M. Goodeagle, Thomas Charles Bear, Edwina Faye Busby, James E. Gilmore, Jean Ann Lambert, Florence Whitecrow Mathews, Ardina Revard Moore, and Fran Wood, and the class they represent, all of whom are enrolled Members of the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma (O-Gah-Pah), a federally recognized Indian nation. The claims arise from Defendant’s failure to properly manage amounts due and owing to the Quapaw Tribal members under leases, permits, and agreements and government actions or inactions relating to certain real property, personal property (including chat severed from the surface and mineral estate by mining), mineral rights, as well as other sums due and owing to them by operation of law. These claims also arise from Defendant’s serious and sustained mismanagement of the Quapaw Tribal members’ Individual Indian Money Accounts, trust accounts, and other monetary assets. These claims also arise from Defendant’s similar mismanagement of the natural resources and other assets on Quapaw Tribal members’ trust/restricted lands, including but not limited to the mismanagement arising from federally managed mining activities on Quapaw Tribal members’ land, resulting in the destruction of natural resources and the environment, including the ability of Tribal members to use the land and other resources for grazing or agricultural or any other economically beneficial purpose.
An accounting of Defendant’s historical management of Quapaw trust assets — as set forth in a report known as the Quapaw Analysis — recently was completed and accepted as final by the Office of Historical Trust Accounting of the United States Department of the Interior. That accounting report, the product of a settlement of a previous suit for an equitable accounting, identifies and details Defendant’s mismanagement of numerous sampled Tribal and individual Tribal member trust assets, including but not limited to Defendant’s failure to collect monies due and owing under leases, permits, and agreements for the Quapaw Tribe and for the restricted interest holders of 13 allotments and of the class they represent, the degradation of the natural resources on the land and the environment, and the waste and dissipation of other trust assets, all of which was the result of mismanagement and negligence by the Defendant. The substantive law governing the United States’ trust responsibilities that were breached in this case may be fairly interpreted as mandating monetary compensation for damages sustained as a result of the breach of those duties.
Klamath Claims Committee v. U.S. Cannot Proceed Without Klamath Tribes
Here are the materials in Klamath Claims Committee v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
DCT Order Granting Partial Dismissal for US
USA Motion to Dismiss KCC Complaint
Senate vote on Cobell settlement likely today
Here’s the article from Greenwire.
You must be logged in to post a comment.