United States v. Mitchell (1983)

Last updated

United States v. Mitchell
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 1, 1983
Decided June 27, 1983
Full case nameUnited States v. Helen Mitchell, et al.
Citations463 U.S. 206 ( more )
103 S. Ct. 2961; 77 L. Ed. 2d 580; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 90
Case history
PriorMitchell v. United States, 591 F.2d 1300 (Ct. Cl. 1979); United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (1980); Mitchell v. United States, 664 F.2d 265 (Ct. Cl. 1981)
Holding
The United States is accountable in money damages for alleged breaches of trust in connection with its management of forest resources on allotted lands of the Quinault Reservation.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
MajorityMarshall, joined by Burger, Brennan, White, Blackmun, Stevens
DissentPowell, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor
Laws applied
Tucker Act, Indian Tucker Act

United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the United States is accountable in money damages for alleged breaches of trust in connection with its management of forest resources on allotted lands of the Quinault Reservation. [1]

Contents

Background

History

The Quinault and Quileute tribes, are American Indian (Native American) tribes located on the Quinault and Quileute Reservations in the State of Washington. The tribes were moved onto unsuitable reservations after signing the Treaty of Olympia [2] [3] with the United States in 1855. In 1873 a reservation of 200,000 acres (81,000 ha) was established by Executive Order along the Washington coastline, with most of the reservation being heavily wooded. [4] [5] In 1905, the federal government began transferring or allotting land to individual tribal members under the Indian General Allotment Act [6] and the Quinault Allotment Act. [7] By 1935 the entire reservation had been broken up into 80 acres (32 ha) parcels. [5] The timber resources on the allotted land was managed by the Department of the Interior and the Secretary of the Interior has statutory authority over the sale of timber from allotted trust lands. [8] The Secretary has issued comprehensive regulations on the management of Indian timber resources. [1] [9] [10]

Prior court decisions

In 1971, 1,465 individuals who owned allotments filed a lawsuit in the Court of Claims alleging that the United States had mismanaged the timber resources on the reservation. [5] Mitchell and the other plaintiffs alleged that the government had breached their fiduciary duty by failing to obtain proper value for timber sold, by failing to properly manage timber resources, and by excessive charges for administrative duties. After discovery had been conducted and a partial trial held in 1977, the government moved to dismiss the suit on jurisdictional grounds. [10] The Court of Claims denied the motion, basing their jurisdiction to hear the case under the Indian General Allotment Act. The United States appealed to the Supreme Court. [1] [5] [11]

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Claims, holding that the Indian General Allotment Act did not create a trust relationship and that any grounds for recovery must be based on other grounds. [5] [11] [12] The case then returned to the Court of Claims to consider the plaintiff's other claims, and the United States again moved for dismissal. The Court of Claims rejected the motion to dismiss, [13] holding that three other federal laws gave the plaintiffs a cause of action. These three laws dealt with timber sales, [14] regulations and sustained yield, [15] and rights-of-way. [5] [11] [13] [16]

The United States again appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to hear the case. [1] [11]

Opinion of the Court

Justice Thurgood Marshall, author of the majority opinion Thurgood-marshall-2.jpg
Justice Thurgood Marshall, author of the majority opinion

Arguments

Joshua I. Schwartz argued the case for the United States. Charles A. Hobbs argued the case for the tribal members. The Shoshone tribe of the Wind River Indian Reservation filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the tribal members. The United States argued that the Court of Claims did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. [1]

Majority opinion

Justice Thurgood Marshall delivered the opinion of the court. Marshall noted that both the Tucker Act [17] and the Indian Tucker Act [18] waived the sovereign immunity of the United States and allowed the plaintiffs to bring a case to the Court of Claims. Marshall then examined the history of the three statutes that the Court of Claims held created a trust relationship with the plaintiffs. He concluded that the plain language of the statutes created a trust relationship between the United States government and the plaintiffs. Marshall noted that it is well established that a trustee is liable for damages in cases of a breach of fiduciary duties. He stated that it "naturally follows that the Government should be liable in damages for the breach of its fiduciary duties." [1] The decision of the Court of Claims was affirmed. [5] [11] [19]

Dissenting opinion

Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. dissented from the majority opinion. Powell stated that without explicit language establishing liability on the government, there can be no valid claim or subject matter jurisdiction. He would have reversed the decision of the Court of Claims. [1] [5] [11]

Subsequent developments

Mitchell was the first case where the Supreme Court ruled that the United States government could be liable for monetary damages for a trust relationship. [20] As a result, Mitchell has been cited over 1,900 times by courts as of August 2012. [21] Since the fiduciary duty has been established, tribes have been using it to ensure that the Secretary of the Interior takes their needs into consideration, especially in the area of mineral and timber resources. [5] [19]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dawes Act</span> US legislative act regulating Native American tribal lands

The Dawes Act of 1887 regulated land rights on tribal territories within the United States. Named after Senator Henry L. Dawes of Massachusetts, it authorized the President of the United States to subdivide Native American tribal communal landholdings into allotments for Native American heads of families and individuals. This would convert traditional systems of land tenure into a government-imposed system of private property by forcing Native Americans to "assume a capitalist and proprietary relationship with property" that did not previously exist in their cultures. The act allowed tribes the option to sell the lands that remained after allotment to the federal government. Before private property could be dispensed, the government had to determine which Indians were eligible for allotments, which propelled an official search for a federal definition of "Indian-ness."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian Reorganization Act</span> United States Law

The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of June 18, 1934, or the Wheeler–Howard Act, was U.S. federal legislation that dealt with the status of American Indians in the United States. It was the centerpiece of what has been often called the "Indian New Deal". The major goal was to reverse the traditional goal of cultural assimilation of Native Americans into American society and to strengthen, encourage and perpetuate the tribes and their historic Native American cultures in the United States.

The Nonintercourse Act is the collective name given to six statutes passed by the United States Congress in 1790, 1793, 1796, 1799, 1802, and 1834 to set Amerindian boundaries of reservations. The various acts were also intended to regulate commerce between settlers and the natives. The most notable provisions of the act regulate the inalienability of aboriginal title in the United States, a continuing source of litigation for almost 200 years. The prohibition on purchases of Indian lands without the approval of the federal government has its origins in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783.

<i>Cobell v. Salazar</i>

Cobell v. Salazar is a class-action lawsuit brought by Elouise Cobell (Blackfeet) and other Native American representatives in 1996 against two departments of the United States government: the Department of Interior and the Department of the Treasury for mismanagement of Indian trust funds. It was settled in 2009. The plaintiffs claim that the U.S. government has incorrectly accounted for the income from Indian trust assets, which are legally owned by the Department of the Interior, but held in trust for individual Native Americans. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The original complaint asserted no claims for mismanagement of the trust assets, since such claims could only properly be asserted in the United States Court of Federal Claims.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation</span> Native American reservation in Utah, United States

The Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation is located in northeastern Utah, United States. It is the homeland of the Ute Indian Tribe, and is the largest of three Indian reservations inhabited by members of the Ute Tribe of Native Americans.

Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903), was a United States Supreme Court case brought against the US government by the Kiowa chief Lone Wolf, who charged that Native American tribes under the Medicine Lodge Treaty had been defrauded of land by Congressional actions in violation of the treaty.

Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court case.

Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704 (1987), is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that a statute ordering the escheat of fractional interests in real property which had been bequeathed to members of the Oglala Sioux tribe was an unconstitutional taking which required just compensation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Omaha Reservation</span> Indian reservation in United States, Omaha

The Omaha Reservation of the federally recognized Omaha tribe is located mostly in Thurston County, Nebraska, with sections in neighboring Cuming and Burt counties, in addition to Monona County in Iowa. As of the 2020 federal census, the reservation population was 4,526. The tribal seat of government is in Macy. The villages of Rosalie, Pender and Walthill are located within reservation boundaries, as is the northernmost part of Bancroft. Due to land sales in the area since the reservation was established, Pender has disputed tribal jurisdiction over it, to which the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2016 that "the disputed land is within the reservation’s boundaries."

United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287 (2009) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Navajo Nation initiated proceedings in the Court of Federal Claims alleging that when they sought the assistance of the United States Secretary of the Interior to renegotiate their original leasing agreement with the Peabody Coal Company in 1984, a procedural process defined by the 1964 Indian Mineral Leasing Act (IMLA) of 1938, the United States Secretary of the Interior had been improperly influenced by the coal company, and as a result, had breached his fiduciary duty to the Nation when he approved the 1987 lease amendments.

Menominee Tribe v. United States, 391 U.S. 404 (1968), is a case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Menominee Indian Tribe kept their historical hunting and fishing rights even after the federal government ceased to recognize the tribe. It was a landmark decision in Native American case law.

United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465 (2003), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5–4 decision that when the federal government used land or property held in trust for an Indian tribe, it had the duty to maintain that land or property and was liable for any damages for a breach of that duty. In the 1870s, the White Mountain Apache Tribe was placed on a reservation in Arizona. The case involved Fort Apache, a collection of buildings on the reservation which were transferred to the tribe by the United States Congress in 1960.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal title in the United States</span> First country to recognize aboriginal title

The United States was the first jurisdiction to acknowledge the common law doctrine of aboriginal title. Native American tribes and nations establish aboriginal title by actual, continuous, and exclusive use and occupancy for a "long time." Individuals may also establish aboriginal title, if their ancestors held title as individuals. Unlike other jurisdictions, the content of aboriginal title is not limited to historical or traditional land uses. Aboriginal title may not be alienated, except to the federal government or with the approval of Congress. Aboriginal title is distinct from the lands Native Americans own in fee simple and occupy under federal trust.

Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661 (1974), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court concerning aboriginal title in the United States. The original suit in this matter was the first modern-day Native American land claim litigated in the federal court system rather than before the Indian Claims Commission. It was also the first to go to final judgement.

<i>Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton</i> United States court decision recognizing Native American rights

Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, 528 F.2d 370, was a landmark decision regarding aboriginal title in the United States. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the Nonintercourse Act applied to the Passamaquoddy and Penobscot, non-federally-recognized Indian tribes, and established a trust relationship between those tribes and the federal government that the State of Maine could not terminate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oklahoma Organic Act</span> Statute used by the United States Congress

An Organic Act is a generic name for a statute used by the United States Congress to describe a territory, in anticipation of being admitted to the Union as a state. Because of Oklahoma's unique history an explanation of the Oklahoma Organic Act needs a historic perspective. In general, the Oklahoma Organic Act may be viewed as one of a series of legislative acts, from the time of Reconstruction, enacted by Congress in preparation for the creation of a united State of Oklahoma. The Organic Act created Oklahoma Territory, and Indian Territory that were Organized incorporated territories of the United States out of the old "unorganized" Indian Territory. The Oklahoma Organic Act was one of several acts whose intent was the assimilation of the tribes in Oklahoma and Indian Territories through the elimination of tribes' communal ownership of property.

Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Sac & Fox Nation, 508 U.S. 114 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that absent explicit congressional direction to the contrary, it must be presumed that a State does not have jurisdiction to tax tribal members who live and work in Indian country, whether the particular territory consists of a formal or informal reservation, allotted lands, or dependent Indian communities.

Kerr-McGee v. Navajo Tribe, 471 U.S. 195 (1985), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an Indian tribe is not required to obtain the approval of the Secretary of the Interior in order to impose taxes on non-tribal persons or entities doing business on a reservation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas</span> Federally recognized tribe of Kickapoo people

The Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas is one of three Federally recognized tribes of Kickapoo people. The other Kickapoo tribes in the United States are the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas and the Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma. The Tribu Kikapú are a distinct subgroup of the Oklahoma Kickapoo and reside on a hacienda near Múzquiz Coahuila, Mexico; they also have a small band located in the Mexican states of Sonora and Durango.

The Klamath Termination Act was a 1953 law under the US Indian termination policy. The Klamath tribe along with the Flathead, Menominee, Potawatomi, and Turtle Mountain Chippewa, as well as all tribes in the states of California, New York, Florida, and Texas were targeted for immediate termination by House Concurrent Resolution 108 of 1953. The statement which was issued 1 August 1953 by the United States Congress announced the official beginning of the federal Indian termination policy. The tribes that were listed as being ready for immediate termination had been placed on a list prepared by acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs, William Zimmerman, because they met four primary criteria: adequate resources, they had adopted to a certain degree the cultural traits of the larger American culture, they were willing to terminate federal trust obligations, and the state was willing to assume jurisdiction over their criminal and civil matters.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983).
  2. ↑ Treaty of Olympia, 12  Stat.   971.
  3. ↑ Kappler, Charles J., ed. (1904). Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties. Vol. 2. Government Printing Office. pp. 719–721. Retrieved August 3, 2012.
  4. ↑ Kappler, Charles J., ed. (1904). Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties. Vol. 1. Government Printing Office. pp. 923–924. Retrieved August 3, 2012.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sisk, Gregory C. (2003), Yesterday and Today: of Indians, Breach of Trust, Money, and Sovereign Immunity , 39 Tulsa L. R. 313, Univ. of Tulsa.
  6. ↑ Indian General Allotment Act, 24  Stat.   388, as amended, 25 U.S.C.   § 331, et seq.
  7. ↑ Quinault Allotment Act, 36  Stat.   1345.
  8. ↑ 25 U.S.C.   §§ 406 – 413
  9. ↑ 25 CFR 163 .
  10. 1 2 Mitchell, et al. v. United States, 591F.2d1300 (Ct.Cl.1979).
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newton, Nell Jessup (1992) Indian Claims in the Courts of the Conqueror , 41 Am. Univ. L. R. 753, American Univ.
  12. ↑ United States v. Mitchell, 445U.S.535 (1980).
  13. 1 2 Mitchell, et al. v. United States, 664F.2d265 (Ct.Cl.1981).
  14. ↑ 25 U.S.C.   §§ 406 – 407.
  15. ↑ 25 U.S.C.   § 466.
  16. ↑ 25 U.S.C.   § 318a and 25 U.S.C.   §§ 323 – 325.
  17. ↑ Tucker Act, 24  Stat.   505.
  18. ↑ Indian Tucker Act, 28  Stat.   1505.
  19. 1 2 Allen, Mark (1989), Native American Control of Tribal Natural Resource Development in the Context of the Federal Trust and Tribal Self-Determination , 16 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 857, Boston College.
  20. ↑ Berkey, Curtis G. (2006), Rethinking the Role of Federal Trust Responsibility in Protecting Indian Land and Resources , 83 Denver L. R. 1, Denver Univ.
  21. ↑ "Google Scholar, "463 U.S. 206"" . Retrieved August 4, 2012.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.