Hopi Tribe v. United States
2015 WL 1474727, 782 F.3d 662, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5283 (2015)
Rule of Law:
The Indian Tucker Act requires an Indian tribe to identify a specific, money-mandating statute or regulation imposing a fiduciary duty on the United States to establish jurisdiction for a claim for damages, and general trust language or federal assistance in a broad area is insufficient to create such a specific duty.
Facts:
- In 1882, President Chester Arthur established the Hopi Reservation by executive order, setting aside land for the use and occupancy of the Hopi and other Indians.
- In 1958, Congress ratified the Executive Order, declaring the reservation lands to be held by the United States in trust for the Hopi Indians.
- Public water systems on the Hopi Reservation, serving five communities, rely on groundwater containing unsafe levels of naturally occurring arsenic.
- The arsenic levels exceed federally allowed maximums and can cause serious health problems, including cancer and nervous system damage.
- The United States funded and provided technical assistance for the construction of many of the wells that supply the contaminated groundwater.
- The Hopi Tribe owns and operates the public water systems for four of the affected communities, while the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) owns and operates the system for the fifth community, Keams Canyon.
Procedural Posture:
- The Hopi Tribe filed a complaint against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims seeking damages to cover the cost of providing alternative sources of drinking water.
- The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint, finding the Hopi Tribe failed to establish jurisdiction under the Indian Tucker Act.
- The Court of Federal Claims also denied the Hopi Tribe’s request for jurisdictional discovery.
- The Hopi Tribe, as Plaintiff-Appellant, appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Indian Tucker Act grant the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over the Hopi Tribe's claim for money damages for inadequate drinking water quality when the Tribe relies on general trust language, the Winters doctrine, and statutes authorizing federal assistance but not specific, money-mandating fiduciary duties concerning water quality management?
Opinions:
Majority - Hughes, Circuit Judge
No, the Indian Tucker Act does not grant the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction because the Hopi Tribe failed to identify a specific, money-mandating statute or regulation that imposes a fiduciary duty on the United States to ensure adequate drinking water quality. The court affirmed the dismissal, explaining that the United States cannot be sued without its consent, which is generally waived for Indian tribes through the Indian Tucker Act for claims arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties. However, this Act does not create substantive rights; a tribe must identify a specific, money-mandating source of law establishing a fiduciary duty that the government breached. The court applied the two-part test from United States v. Navajo Nation (Navajo II), requiring a specific duty and that the source of law mandate compensation. It found that the 'bare' trust language in the 1958 Act and 1882 Executive Order, holding land 'in trust,' was insufficient to establish a specific fiduciary duty to manage water quality, similar to United States v. Mitchell (Mitchell I). Furthermore, the Winters doctrine, which implies reserved water rights, primarily concerns protecting water from third-party interference and does not impose a duty on the United States to manage internal water quality for naturally occurring contaminants. The court also rejected the argument that other statutes authorizing federal assistance for safe drinking water (e.g., Indian Health Improvement Act, Indian Sanitation Facilities Act) establish a money-mandating fiduciary duty. These statutes are general policy statements or authorizations for assistance, not specific, trust-creating provisions. The court emphasized that the Federal Government's liability cannot be premised on control alone, distinguishing this case from United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe and United States v. Mitchell (Mitchell II). Unlike White Mountain Apache, where trust language combined with exclusive use authorization suggested a common-law duty to preserve, the statutes here created a bare trust and separately authorized assistance without evoking specific common-law trust duties. Unlike Mitchell II, the statutes do not grant the United States 'full responsibility' and 'elaborate control' over water resources akin to timber management, nor do they specify fiduciary obligations enforceable in damages. Therefore, without a specific, money-mandating fiduciary obligation, the Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and reinforces the stringent requirements for establishing jurisdiction under the Indian Tucker Act, particularly regarding the nature of fiduciary duties owed by the United States to Indian tribes. It establishes that general trust language in land-holding statutes and broad federal programs providing assistance are insufficient to create specific, money-mandating fiduciary obligations that would allow for a claim for damages. The ruling emphasizes the need for an express statutory or regulatory prescription that bears the hallmarks of a conventional fiduciary relationship, thereby limiting the scope of claims tribal plaintiffs can bring against the government for failures related to general welfare and resource management.
