Two Native American tribes have brought forth claims to the Supreme Court seeking to force the federal government to honor its trust obligations to them. On December 2, the Supreme Court heard preliminary arguments relating to one the largest tribal trust mismanagement cases in legal history, with questions raised about the responsibilities of the U.S. government in acting as trustee for Native lands. The Court has agreed to hear two important cases, U.S. v. Navajo Nation, 01-1375, and U.S. v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 01-1067.
Lawyers for the Bush administration requested that the Supreme Court place a limit on lawsuits filed by American Indian tribes seeking claims for the Department of the Interior's neglect of its responsibilities to protect tribal resources. Assistant solicitor Gregory Garre said that the government would be subject to countless such suits unless restrictions were set. “That would be an enormous potential liability that there is no indication that Congress ever intended to assume,” he said. Garre specifically argued that the Supreme Court should reverse appeals court rulings in the Navajo and White Mountain cases, in which the government was held liable for violating responsibilities to the tribes involved.
The government's responsibility for billions of dollars in tribal funds and 56 million acres of land is a vital issue to both tribes and individual American Indians. The Court's rulings in these two cases should have a major impact on American Indian tribes throughout the nation. A negative ruling could affect numerous mismanagement cases currently pending at the Federal Court of Claims. The government could be found liable for damages of up to $600 million due to the Navajo Nation and $14 million to the Apache.
The Navajo Nation claims that due to a former assistant Interior secretary's collusion with Peabody Energy, which mines coal on the reservation, the tribe was wrongly denied tens of millions of dollars in revenues. In July 1985, the tribe sought to renegotiate a 20-year old lease with Peabody, with an increase in royalties from barely 1 percent to 20 percent of the profits. The Department of the Interior initially deemed this appropriate but former secretary Donald Hodel lowered the agreed upon amount after speaking with an industry lobbyist whose client, Peabody, opposed the increase. The Nation, at the urging of the BIA, ultimately had to settle for a 12.5 percent royalty.
Hodel was chastised by a federal judge in February 2000, but the tribe was not awarded damages. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision in August 2001 in a 2-1 decision for the Navajo Nation, prompting the Bush administration to appeal to the Supreme Court. Navajo attorney Paul Frye stated that former secretary Hodel “colluded with Peabody to swindle the Navajo Nation.” Frye also asked justices to look at the United States neglect of its duties as a trustee, though the Bush administration counters that the case does not meet requirements for money damage claims.
During last Monday's oral debate session, the justices heard the two sides' arguments on the government's responsibility to maintain certain buildings owned by the White Mountain Apache Tribe of Arizona. The tribe is seeking damages, stating that the Department of the Interior should provide funds to restore decaying Fort Apache buildings of historical significance. Congress permitted government use of the buildings, provided that the buildings revert to tribal use when the government was finished with them. Due to the government's neglect, to date millions of dollars have been spent in building repair, and at least $8 million in work remains to be completed.
Assistant solicitor Garre argued that Congress did not order government upkeep of the buildings and that the tribes could not claim damages by stating that the government failed in its responsibilities. Tribal attorney Robert Brauchli countered that the government's use of the structures and role as trustee entails responsibility for the buildings' maintenance. The tribe therefore filed suit in the Federal Court of Claims for the amount it would take to repair the buildings. The Claims Court turned down the suit, citing a lack of grounds for the claim. This ruling was reversed in May 2001, as the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals cited the 1960 law returning lands to the tribe as proof of a 'fiduciary relationship', thus justifying a financial award due to breach of trust.
