Federal Trust Responsibility

1
Federal Trust Responsibility

• Ronald Hall
• Director
• Tribal Technical Assistance Program
• Colorado State University
• [phone]

2

• Background Principals of Federal Indian Law
• What is Federal Trust Responsibility?
• Definition
• Scope
• Parties
• Current Trend in Application of Federal Trust
  Responsibility

3
Johnson v. McIntosh (1823)

• Defined Indian Title as the right to occupy land
• Discovery Doctrine Discovery gave title to the
  government by whose subjects, or by whose
  authority, it was made, against all other
  European governments, title is consummated by
  possession.
• Christian Europeans gain title upon discovery
  where lands are occupied by heathen
• Tribes become mere occupants incapable of
  transferring the absolute title

4
Domestic Dependent Nation

• Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)
• Is Cherokee Nation a foreign state such that it
  can sue in Supreme Court?
• Tribes are separate state distinct political
  bodies separate and capable of self government
• Treaties with U.S. and U.S. laws recognize
  Cherokees as a state
• Cherokees argued that they are aliens owing no
  allegiance to the U.S. and are therefore foreign
• Tribes have Indian title subject to U.S. title
• Tribes are in state of pupilage guardian-ward,
  look to U.S. for protection
• Under sovereignty and control of U.S.

5
Seminole Nation v. United States (1942)

• 1856 treaty promised 500,000 trust fund, the
  annual interest (25k) paid per capita annuity
• Tribe sued claiming violations of treaty,
  including the manner in which payments were made.
• Between 1870 to 1874, at request of tribal
  council, payments went to tribal treasurer and
  not directly to individuals.
• Federal officials knew tribal officials were
  misappropriating the funds and depriving
  individuals of benefits

6

• U.S. claimed payment was at request of tribe, and
  treaty was between U.S. and tribe, not
  individuals.
• Rule of equity that 3rd party who pays money to a
  fiduciary for the benefit of the beneficiary,
  with knowledge that the fiduciary intends to
  misappropriate the money, is a participant in the
  breach of trust and liable therefore to the
  beneficiary.
• Council stood in fiduciary capacity to members.
• Payments did not discharge treaty obligation if
  the federal officials actually knew the Council
  was defrauding the members of the Seminole Nation.

7
Trust Exists Beyond Statutes

• In carrying out treaty obligations, U.S. is
  something more than a mere contracting party.
• Court has recognized the distinctive obligation
  of trust incumbent on the Government in its
  dealings with these dependent and sometimes
  exploited people.
• U.S. has moral obligations of the highest
  responsibility and trust.
• Government conduct, as disclosed in the acts of
  those who represent it in dealings with Indians,
  should therefore be judged by the most exacting
  fiduciary standards.

8
U.S. v. Mitchell

• U.S. v. Mitchell (1980) Mitchell I (General
  Allotment Act) and U.S. v. Mitchell (1984)
  Mitchell II Claim for money damages by members
  of Quinault Tribe for federal mismanagement of
  the timber on their allotments under.
• Indian timber management statutes give the
  Federal Government full responsibility to manage
  Indian resources and land for the benefit of the
  Indians.
• They thereby establish fiduciary relationship

9
The Rule of Law from Mitchell

• Where the Federal Government takes on or has
  control or supervision over tribal monies or
  properties, the fiduciary relationship normally
  exists with respect to such monies or properties
  (unless Congress has provide otherwise) even
  though nothing is said expressly in the
  authorizing statute about a trust fund, or a
  trust or fiduciary connections.

10

• Menominee Tribe v. U.S. (1944) mismanagement of
  timber resources
• Morton v. Ruiz (1974) BIA limitation of general
  assistance benefits to Indians living on
  reservations.

11
Current Trend

• U.S. v. Navajo Nation (2003)
• Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938
• 1987 amendments to 1964 coal lease
• Tribe claims Secretary of Interior breach of
  trust for dealings with Peabody Coal contrary to
  tribal interests
• Act says minerals may be leased for mining
  purposes with approval of Secretary by authority
  of tribe
• Court found no obligations resembling the
  detailed fiduciary responsibilities that Mitchell
  found in timber statutes

12
U.S. v. White Mountain Apache Tribe

• Decision same day as Navajo Nation
• 1922 Congress transferred control of Fort Apache
  to Secretary of Interior and in 1923 set aside
  400 acres for use as an Indian school.
• Statute said Fort Apache would be held by the
  U.S. in trust for the White Mountain Apache
  Tribe, subject to the right of the Secretary of
  the Interior to use any part of the lande and
  improvements for administrative or school
  purposes.
• Found for the tribe, 14 million to rehabilitate
  the property

13
Cobell Litigation