Here:
Federal Circuit
United States Petition for Rehearing in In re United States
Here: In re United States Petition for Rehearing
Recall that the question involved is whether the United States can avoid producing certain documents in the Jicarilla Apache v. United States case (materials here).
Plenty v. DOI — Federal Circuit Affirms Discharge of Indian Trust Employee in Conflict of Interest
Here is the opinion.
An excerpt:
In 1989, Ms. Plenty began working at the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“Agency”), a division of the Department of the Interior. She worked in the Land Title and Records Office (“Office”), which secures, processes, and maintains records on interests in real property held in trust by the United States for individual Native Americans and tribes. Ms. Plenty was removed from her position as a legal instruments examiner on April 7, 2008.
The evidence indicates that, on December 13, 2007, Ms. Plenty, herself a Native American, requested that Mamie Charette, an Office cartography technician, print out Ms. Plenty’s mother’s land holding reports and associated maps. Ms. Charette provided Ms. Plenty with five bound booklets pertaining to her mother’s trust property, including an Individual/Tribal Report (“ITI”) and Title Status Reports (“TSRs”). Ms. Charette testified that her work in response to Ms. Plenty’s request was performed on two separate days. She estimated that it took her approximately six hours to complete the work.
Ms. Plenty admitted that she was aware of the Office’s policy on conflicts of interest, which prohibited its employees from performing work on relatives’ estates. In addition, as a “probable heir,” Ms. Plenty was required to make a request to the Agency office having administrative jurisdiction over the Indian land and was not entitled to receive the TSRs that she obtained from Ms. Charette. A TSR contains information on all fractional owners and their interests, and its dissemination is more restricted than an ITI.
Hoopa Valley Tribe Loses Claim to Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Funds
Here is the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Hoopa Valley Tribe v. United States.
Briefs:
Lower court materials are here.
Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. U.S. — Attorney-Client Privilege Dispute Headed for Supreme Court?
Jicarilla Apache Tribe sued the U.S. in 2002 in the Court of Federal Claims and later asked for inter-agency federal documents where the government claimed an attorney-client privilege. The court disagreed and ordered the production of certain documents. This order here denies the government’s motion for a stay while it petitions to the Federal Circuit for a mandamus order. Now apparently it wants more time to file a cert petition in the Supreme Court.
And here is the Federal Circuit’s order.
United States Files Cert Petition in Supreme Court re: Procedure in Indian Trust Cases
Here is the petition: United States v Tohono O’odham Nation Cert Petition.
Suffice it to say that the chances of this petition being granted are pretty good — about two-thirds (or more) of all of the United States’ cert petitions are granted.
Here are the questions presented:
Under 28 U.S.C. 1500, the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) does not have jurisdiction over “any claim for or in respect to which the plaintiff *** has *** any suit or process against the United States” or its agents “pending in any other court.” The question presented is:
Whether 28 U.S.C. 1500 deprives the CFC of jurisdiction over a claim seeking monetary relief for the government’s alleged violation of fiduciary obligations if the plaintiff has another suit pending in federal district court based on substantially the same operative facts, especially when the plaintiff seeks monetary relief or other overlapping relief in the two suits.
Here are the lower court materials. And a decision in a similar case.
Federal Circuit Adopts Fiduciary Exception to Atty-Client Privilege in Tribal Trust Cases
One would expect a cert petition from the United States in the new year on this one.
An excerpt:
The United States petitions for a writ of mandamus to direct the Court of Federal Claims (“trial court”) to vacate its orders requiring the United States to produce documents that it asserts are protected by the attorney-client privilege. Jicarilla Apache Nation (“Jicarilla”) opposes. We hold that the United States cannot deny an Indian tribe’s request to discover communications between the United States and its attorneys based on the attorney-client privilege when those communications concern management of an Indian trust and the United States has not claimed that the government or its attorneys considered a specific competing interest in those communications. Accordingly, we adopt the fiduciary exception in tribal trust cases. Under the fiduciary exception, a fiduciary may not block a beneficiary from discovering information protected under the attorney-client privilege when the information relates to fiduciary matters, including trust management. Because we find that the trial court correctly applied the fiduciary exception to the United States’ privileged communications, we deny the United States’ petition for a writ of mandamus.
Harvest Inst. Freedmen Federation v. United States Cert Petition
This has no chance of being granted, but it’s interesting anyway — Harvest Institute Freedmen Federation v United States Cert Petition.
The question presented:
The claims in this action were brought on behalf of representatives of persons formerly held in bondage by the so-called “Five Civilized” Indian Tribes, hereinafter “Freedmen.” The Freedmen were beneficiaries of the various trusts established between the Five Civilized Tribes and the United States by 1866 treaties, which were later modified by further allotments in 1902. The question presented is whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erroneously affirmed dismissal under28 U.S.C. §2501 of Petitioners’ claims without addressing in any manner whatsoever Petitioners’ Repudiation Rule argument that the statute of limitations does not begin to run on claims by a trust beneficiary like Petitioners’, against a trustee, here the United States, to enforce the terms of a trust until, the trustee repudiates the trust relationship, something that to date the United States has not done.
Here are the district court materials and and the Federal Circuit decision.
Wolfchild v. United States Cert Petition
Here — Wolfchild Cert Petition
Questions presented:
1. After Carcieri, whether federal court subject matter jurisdiction exists over Native American beneficiary claims of purported federal government violations of the 1934 IRA or other applicable federal statutes when post-1934 IRA non-tribal community governments are involved.
2. Whether the Federal Circuit’s holding of “statutory use restrictions” in Congressional Appropriation Acts establishing statutory obligations on the United States, but no “trust,” departs from applicable statutory interpretation and trust principles set forth in United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) and its progeny.
3. Whether the Federal Circuit’s holding that a 1980 Congressional Act terminated a trust impermissibly conflicts with the First Circuit’s decision in Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, 528 F.2d 370 (1st Cir. 1979) in that the Federal Circuit failed to consider the 1934 IRA’s extension of all Native American trusts under 25 U.S.C. § 462 and failed to apply the “clear and unambiguous requirement” for a trust termination act.
Federal Circuit Reaffirms Tohono O’Odham Principle
… that tribes may bring different claims for relief from the same facts in both federal district court and the federal court of claims.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.